Has Cancel Culture Gone too Far?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, SithEmpress said:

I hate the term "cancel culture" 

It's a reality however, that many have faced.

 

You're right. Disagreeing with someone is nothing new. 

 

However, many are aware, that the power of the internet can make any movement instantly powerful.

 

Whether the intended target of your ire, was deserving of it or not.

[Epitaph]

Yeah. Although I think it's not a correct terminology when we use cancel culture. This trend stemmed from a precursor. Political correctness. This is just an olive branch to it. I'm sure I could talk about it at length but it's already been said through responses already.

[SithLord]

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

However, many are aware, that the power of the internet can make any movement instantly powerful.

Because in the past it was only those in power who got to decide who was allowed to speak and spread their message quickly and easily. 

 

Also, yes, I'm comparing the "cancellers" with the tyranical governments who sought to silence all opposing voices or else kept their countries in such horrible states that commoners could not even read. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, SithEmpress said:

Some would argue it's self defense, or defending others from being "poisoned"

But who sets the standard on what is poison? 

 

Kevin Hart was robbed a opportunity to host the Oscar's because of cancel culture. They took it one step further, and tried to cancel him from a career.

 

He made a gay joke that didn't go over well. The joke, knowing its humor, is and was actually hilarious to many. 

 

Eddie Murphy's Raw, was far worse, in comparison, yet his career is thriving. 

 

Patrice O'Neal came under similar fire for coining the term "angry pirate", during sex as a means of describing a clearly tongue in cheek sexual act. 

 

Feminists groups tried to cancel him, completely missing the point. 

 

He was on the news explaining the term, and you could hear anchors bursting out laughing in the background.

 

If what he was saying was dangerous, why was it bringing crowds into histerics?

 

Don't we have bodies that govern what can be said on TV?

 

Why do groups feel they can cancel others because *they* are offended?

[Homer]

Yes.

 

Phew, that was easy.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

Also, yes, I'm comparing the "cancellers" with the tyranical governments who sought to silence all opposing voices or else kept their countries in such horrible states that commoners could not even read. 

So the canceled bringing forth the same level of tyranny is fine, as long as it's not government driven? 

[Guest]

I think the cancel culture has done some good, as has been mentioned in the thread. It has given the otherwise voiceless, a very powerful voice. 

 

Major corporations, moguls and political power houses need to take notice, and no longer can silence others. 

 

My point is, that with great power, should always come with great responsibility. 

 

And wielding such power irresponsibly, sets a horrible precedent. 

 

It has the unintended consequence of giving power to small groups of people who are not looking for justice. Not looking for a voice. They are looking to use these vessels, to further expand their own dangerous messages or stances. Using protests to incite destruction and rioting. 

 

Cancel others and garnering the movement that allows them to, just because they can. 

 

In that type of setting, where there is a blatant abuse of power where the playing field is no longer level. Rules of engagement no longer are fair or even morally right, it to me has gone too far. 

 

 

[SithLord]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

So the canceled bringing forth the same level of tyranny is fine, as long as it's not government driven? 

Legit didn't say that. I was literally saying we used to live in tyrannical situations where people were illiterate. How would that be better than it is now? 

 

If anything, I'm saying it's better now when it's the populace making demands about what should be cancelled. That the freedoms laid out by our government allows companies and platforms to decide what they want on their platforms. 

[Pandark]

Social media platforms present themselves as common carriers, but they aren't. Firstly they're redacted, which raises the question whether they're actually publishers rather than neutral public forums. Secondly, they don't show everyone the same content. There are algorithms to present everyone with what they want to see, even in some search engines. Few people understand how these work, yet they affect public opinion, thus hold great power.

 

On the platform or publisher question:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

 

Expose someone to a certain stimulus often, they become less sensitive to it. Remove the stimulus and they become much more sensitive to it. This is simply biology. Add to that that there is bias in all content, pre-selecting what people are exposed to is going to affect that bias. These mechanisms reinforce the outrage culture we seem to currently live in, and not only that..

[Aquatic Paradox]

37 minutes ago, Pandark said:

Social media platforms present themselves as common carriers, but they aren't. Firstly they're redacted, which raises the question whether they're actually publishers rather than neutral public forums. Secondly, they don't show everyone the same content. There are algorithms to present everyone with what they want to see, even in some search engines. Few people understand how these work, yet they affect public opinion, thus hold great power.

 

On the platform or publisher question:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

 

Expose someone to a certain stimulus often, they become less sensitive to it. Remove the stimulus and they become much more sensitive to it. This is simply biology. Add to that that there is bias in all content, pre-selecting what people are exposed to is going to affect that bias. These mechanisms reinforce the outrage culture we seem to currently live in, and not only that..

These companies will probably still thrive when Western Society resembles something closer to South Sudan, which is the sad part. 

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, Arodash said:

This becomes a problem when these platforms use it to damage the democracy, when they grow so large that they engage in antitrust acts against competitors. We have government regulations for this kind of stuff. The FTC exists to ensure a fair marketplace. The government will just outsource tyranny to private organizations. Govt loves outside companies because they arent bound by the same rules and laws the US is, case in point. Our extensive use of PMCs in the middle east, private companies that operate traffic camera's for law enforcement. Politicians using their platforms to silence critics, like Trump, and AOC. Both these people tried using the ban feature on Twitter to silence critics which a court ruled wasnt allowed. And the people defending these private companies who engage in censorship are the same people who want socialism, how does that make any sense? When in socialism these kinds of big tech companies would be nationalized. The people who defend this censorship only defend it because it doesnt censor them, but eventually they come for them too. 

You're using the "First they came for the" poem in the opposite direction. It doesn't really go that far in the opposite direction most of the time.

 

Also, we already have a shit ton of not-quite monopolies in place. Wish the government would do something about them. 

 

Also, it's not "damage democracy" in this sense. It would be damage freedom of speech. They're not one in the same.

[Marrow]

11 hours ago, SithEmpress said:

 

I have no doubt more right-wing people are dropped though. Because I see more right wing people outright calling for violence against certain groups. So not really comparable in my eyes when you're comparing left wing people who are screaming "Respect my marriage!" and right wing people who are screaming "Your marriage is a lie and your life style choices are sending you to hell!"

Well that's certainly a generalization. What about all the left-wing people that call out for violence or what about all the left-wing people that are blatantly offensive. Clementine Ford said "Coronavirus isnt killing men quick enough" and she still has a Twitter. Regardless that she eventually caved and apologized, if someone said that about women they would be on a burning stake. There isnt one side to hate, hate is on both sides. The difference is that one side is heavily scrutinized while the other gets a passing glance.

[Marrow]

1 hour ago, Marrow said:

Well that's certainly a generalization. What about all the left-wing people that call out for violence or what about all the left-wing people that are blatantly offensive. Clementine Ford said "Coronavirus isnt killing men quick enough" and she still has a Twitter. Regardless that she eventually caved and apologized, if someone said that about women they would be on a burning stake. There isnt one side to hate, hate is on both sides. The difference is that one side is heavily scrutinized while the other gets a passing glance.

Also just something i wanna tack on to this, but hate in all its forms is wrong so I dont care if "the right is more hateful" and I dont care if the same is said about the left in the end its still hatred. MLK taught us (well I thought he did) that "Returning hate for hate multplies hate..." and leaves me wondering why few realize this.

[KiraS]

It's mostly smoke and noise. Some exceptions: Milo Y. and Alex Jones largely got deplatformed for supporting harassment campaigns. Spacey getting sacked within a matter of days was extremely unusual, and I suspect it's because Netflix and Sony already knew about his habitual sexual harassment. (The guy has credible complaints in almost every production company he's been involved in.) It's a tweet storm, and at the end of the day, these people still have huge bank accounts and comeback tours. 

 

But, free speech works in both ways. Calling Milo a fascist gadfly, Jones a creep, and Spacey a serial harasser is also free speech. Free speech includes the right to vote with our pocketbooks, but I don't see that it is doing much beyond an act of conscience. 

 

I feel that tweeting about tweets is really low-hanging fruit as far as activism goes and doesn't really change much. Better to just set up the equivalent of a swear jar and donate the money at the end of the week to your favorite political cause. 

 

EDIT: And the other side of the Spacey story is that his agency successfully killed the story for years through back-room phone calls and deals. Curiously all the discussion about censorship focuses on people tweeting bad opinions (which isn't censorship at all), and not on the stories that were killed or rewritten in response to advertising and talent agency demands. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SithEmpress said:

Legit didn't say that.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You definitely did not say that. I am going by the implication you made which likely was done inadvertently.

 

It's like someone saying Robin Hood is righteous. The implication made, is theft is wrong, unless it's the poor doing it to the rich. That if you have money, it's not a big deal for you to lose it. 

 

When dealing with politics, it's not white and black. One must be able to read between lines. 

 

You can't condone it on one side, and cry foul on another. 

[Guest]

My issue with this movement, is that many political bodies have governing bodies above them, to keep them honest. 

 

Nobody will blast and humiliate those who have ruined a life and been found to have done so in the wrong. 

 

Once the pack mentality rolls in, its game over. 

[KiraS]

Depp, from all accounts, has done a great job ruining his own life through substance abuse, bad investments, declining acting skills, and mismanagement. Still, he's getting a movie release this year, a confirmed release next year, and at least three more beyond that. 

 

I'm not really interested in debating competing domestic violence claims between two people who each have a history of assault complaints. 

[KiraS]

2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Yeah except Amber ruined his life and LIED hurting the metoo movement. He was cancelled within DAYS of her false allegations she tampered and created false evidence. But those moral authoritarians keep protecting her

I'm not interested in debating you, and I'm certainly not interested in debating domestic violence allegations on this basis. Have a nice day. 

[Alejandrogynous]

I care much less about celebrities and public figures who have access to lawyers and PR help and still usually get through being canceled with big (sometimes even bigger) fanbases, than I am about small creators and "regular people" who get harassed and outcasted every day because of cancel culture. Especially minorities/people who depend on small communities - what happens to them when their communities decide to cancel them? Where do they go? Canceling in small communities is like rumors in a small town, that shit follows you for life and not everybody is equipped to handle that kind of social ostracization.

 

Not to say being (unfairly) canceled as a celeb isn't rough but, by the nature of success, they already have an established support system in place. They'll be fine.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

Cancel culture is real and it is pretty ridiculous. Everyday news articles come out about a new thing people find offensive. It is just authoritarian using getting offended, to control others. They aren't making the world better, they are actually making things worse by deciding people on ridiculous things no rational adult should care about, like going after Paw Patrol. If you don't like something don't consume it, but shaming others is wrong.

 

I personally hate people disrespecting the American flag, I find it offensive and will say it. I do believe it is everyones right to burn the flag, it shouldn't be illegal. The second I see someone showing disrespect towards the flag, that many have died defending, so we can live a better life, the person lost my respect. That's not to say those that apologize I won't regain some respect. When it comes to 

Colin Kaepernick, I don't like him nor do I respect him, but I do think if a team wants him he should be allowed in the NFL. I don't care if he is in or out.

 

 I think it comes down to It we can all have disagreements, but don't harrasses people, threaten them, try to get them fired or Dox them for doing it. I think when people try and force their own ideology on someone else that makes them a bad person 

[SithLord]

8 hours ago, Arodash said:

It does go in that direction. It always does

 

And an attack on free speech is an attack on Democracy you cant have democracy without free speech they go hand in hand

More I've found right-wing people attack based on identities (race, sexuality, gender) and left-wing people attack based on ideas or groups. These are generalizations and certainly don't apply to everyone and anyone, but you can't compare nazi germany ("First they came for the...") to modern leftists simply because both people attacked free speech. There are very obvious differences with how they're going about it.

 

Also, I believe several times in this thread, I've conceded that there are examples of people "going too far" as the OP stated in their original post. I believe attacking someone for something decades ago is too much. I believe evidence should be demanded rather than just screaming unfounded accusations. Probably something else listed. 

The only thing I really disagree on is how modern "cancel culture" is in any way different from the way things have always been but with a shift in the power. A shift I consider in the right direction, overall. 

[SithLord]

9 hours ago, Marrow said:

Well that's certainly a generalization. What about all the left-wing people that call out for violence or what about all the left-wing people that are blatantly offensive. Clementine Ford said "Coronavirus isnt killing men quick enough" and she still has a Twitter. Regardless that she eventually caved and apologized, if someone said that about women they would be on a burning stake. There isnt one side to hate, hate is on both sides. The difference is that one side is heavily scrutinized while the other gets a passing glance.

It is a generalization. I know some very reasonable right-leaning people. My parents are either moderate or right of moderate and I get along fine with them. One of my best friends is firmly on the right side of the political seesaw and we enjoy discussing how we agree on a lot of stuff but disagree about the way it should be gone about (or about how we'll understand what someone is saying, she's more of a "If he didn't say those exact words, it's not what he said or meant" while I'll go with "He's implying X."). 

 

I disagree that one side is heavily scrutinized while the other is given a pass. Maybe I'm biased, but I believe if people are defending a racist, they don't deserve a pass. I believe people who are constantly throwing out offensive dog-whistles, they deserve to be called out. The way I go about this is ignore their content and refuse to add to their audience, and support those who do call them out. 

Also, if we're talking about the overall climate of today, America's right-wing is very much separated from the middle-ground of global politics. Our "far left" candidates could be argued to be fairly moderate by European standards. Though our moderates would also be considered "far left" by the standards of countries I think most of us agree we don't want to live in (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, etc). 

 

We're talking about the people who can be shown to lead to contribute ideologically to murderers, racists, bigots, etc. but are waved away because they themselves didn't contribute to the violence. I see more right-leaning murderers than I do left-leaning. I see more right-leaning bigots than I see left-leaning. I see more dangerous and offensive material coming form the right than I do from the left. I am not saying the left is perfect, I just see the left criticizing itself more than I see the right criticize itself. Look at the way the Republican politicans refuse to go against Trump no matter what he says and how offensive it is. Sure they may say "I wish he hadn't said that" or "that was poorly worded", but I see more left-wing people call each other out for being assholes and forcing them to apologize. 

[SithLord]

8 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I will compare anyone attacking free speech to that. Especially when some of these people are overt anti-semites

I really don't want to get into the anti-semetic stuff. Mostly because I don't notice a lot of it and have heard almost anyone can be considered anti-semetic depending on how you swing things. All the "being anti-Isreal means you're anti-semetic" made me really not want to participate in any of those discussions. 

 

And I believe there's a fundamental difference between "Don't go around being an asshole" and "I will lock you away in a labor/death camp because of your identity that you have no control over". 

[SithLord]

27 minutes ago, Arodash said:

It all starts somewhere. You have had people, like Bernie staffers call for placing conservatives in reeducation camps. 

 

And okay fine, ignore the anti semitism, they say silence is complience. Not like Bill Deblasio has been targetting only thr Jewish community, not like Ilhan Omar has said horrible things about jews. 

I said I wanted to ignore it and am overtly choosing to ignore the other racist/islamphobic/transphobic/sexist SHIT coming disproportionately from one side than the other. I'm trying to dispel this argument when clearly you're ready to just start screaming trigger words to continue this. 

 

I'm also not saying these people aren't anti-semetic, simply saying that for now I don't want to talk about it. Because it would involve research rather than taking some rando on the internet at their word. Because I gave an exact example of people who take the anti-semetic label too far. 

[SithLord]

28 minutes ago, Arodash said:

The only people seeing these so called dog whistles, are the left. What does that say about their possible racist minds?

That we're more blatent with being dicks than the people who clearly feel the need to hide their hateful shit? 

 

"I'm not racist, I just want fair voting" which ignores the massive amount of problems the laws they're proposing would cause with specifically non-white and non-middle/upper class individuals.

"I'm a law and order president" while breaking the law several times and doing very questionable legal problems, also while claiming laws don't apply to him because of his current status. 

"It's not white supremacy, it's nationalism."

"I'm not sexist, it's just biology" legit argument in some instances but shit in others.

 

Something funny about the fair voting thing is a conversation I had with my friend one time. She and I were talking about elections and how they were unfair. I pointed out that because of where we both live, her vote counts as more than mine and therefore has more power to influence national elections, and she understood that as being unfair while still saying it was because of some bullshit about famers being overruled by city people who don't understand farms. Literally farmers' rights was her justified reason about why her vote should count more than mine despite me coming from a more agricultural area than her. But you know what I couldn't get her to say? "My vote counts as more than yours and that's a good thing", because even she knew that was shit, though I would've preferred her to be more upfront about it rather than hiding behind her bullshit excuse. 

 

Also, before you go off on this tangent, I know there are decent reasons for the differences in representation in government and for it not to just be allocated via population. She just didn't give any good reasons. 

[SithLord]

1 minute ago, Arodash said:

And I have an example of 2 overt anti semetics. Go ahead and ignore it but Im arguing this in the context of cancel culture only going in 1 direction. Also, we dont need to swear in bold to get a point accross I get it

I want to be petty, so I figured I'd point out that it wasn't bold, it was all-caps, gosh.

 

https://www.bendthearc.us/a_failing_campaign_for_the_jewish_vote_can_t_hide_gop_s_anti_semitism

https://www.972mag.com/white-nationalism-anti-semitism-gop/

https://www.972mag.com/jewish-scholars-trump-antisemitism/

https://www.politicalresearch.org/2019/10/22/taking-aim-multiracial-democracy

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/09/04/how-the-right-has-tried-to-rebrand-anti-semitism/

https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Poll-Extreme-right-wing-more-anti-Semitic-than-14558857.php

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/12/donald-trump-is-attacking-both-jews-and-the-left-with-one-clean-blow

 

This last one I need a clarification for. Did Trump really sign something saying Judaism is a nationality? Because I don't really understand how one can take a religion and force it into a nationality. And if you want to go with the "ethnic Jews" (I've heard it used too many by really racist people so don't know if it's offensive or not, so I put it in quotes), then what "nation" do they belong to? Do they all now by default become Israeli, because I can sure as shit understand how that's a can of worms.  

[SithLord]

6 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I'd say its an example of racism if you see racism where there is no racism but your free to believe whatever you like thats your right I just disagree

Or maybe it's just you ignoring the obvious signs around you to push your own narrative? 

[Marrow]

Spoiler

1 hour ago, SithEmpress said:

It is a generalization. I know some very reasonable right-leaning people. My parents are either moderate or right of moderate and I get along fine with them. One of my best friends is firmly on the right side of the political seesaw and we enjoy discussing how we agree on a lot of stuff but disagree about the way it should be gone about (or about how we'll understand what someone is saying, she's more of a "If he didn't say those exact words, it's not what he said or meant" while I'll go with "He's implying X."). 

 

I disagree that one side is heavily scrutinized while the other is given a pass. Maybe I'm biased, but I believe if people are defending a racist, they don't deserve a pass. I believe people who are constantly throwing out offensive dog-whistles, they deserve to be called out. The way I go about this is ignore their content and refuse to add to their audience, and support those who do call them out. 

Also, if we're talking about the overall climate of today, America's right-wing is very much separated from the middle-ground of global politics. Our "far left" candidates could be argued to be fairly moderate by European standards. Though our moderates would also be considered "far left" by the standards of countries I think most of us agree we don't want to live in (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, etc). 

 

We're talking about the people who can be shown to lead to contribute ideologically to murderers, racists, bigots, etc. but are waved away because they themselves didn't contribute to the violence. I see more right-leaning murderers than I do left-leaning. I see more right-leaning bigots than I see left-leaning. I see more dangerous and offensive material coming form the right than I do from the left. I am not saying the left is perfect, I just see the left criticizing itself more than I see the right criticize itself. Look at the way the Republican politicans refuse to go against Trump no matter what he says and how offensive it is. Sure they may say "I wish he hadn't said that" or "that was poorly worded", but I see more left-wing people call each other out for being assholes and forcing them to apologize. 

 

So just to start I see you are already debating someone here so you can take your time to reply. 

 

If you have examples of people on the right that are good then why generalize? If your friend got banned off twitter or you parents then would you assume that they said something "offensive" because of others have?

 

Well we'll agree to disagree. What about the people that are racist to white people, what about people who say "kill cops"? Will you ignore these kind of things if it comes from the left? The only reason I'm asking is because you said you "might be biased".

 

This is again perspective I see a lot of violent and hateful things that come from the left, but are ignored because "you cant be racist to white people". As I said before "hate is hate" I dont care if the left has one racist and the right has a ton it is out duty as a civilization to call out hatred on all fronts. Also the reason the Republicans support Orange man is because he wins. In 2016 they didnt like him as much, but the public picked him (sadly) and theyre going to roll with him again to win. It kinda like how you said youre voting for Biden because you dont like Trump; same thing. They are supporting Trump because they dont like Biden and dont have any other strong candidates.

[SithLord]

6 hours ago, Arodash said:

Like you intentionally ignoring the anti semitism? Take it from someone of a multi racial, multi cultural family. People who see racism where there is no racism have some kind of unconcious bias or prejudice.

 

Trump did this to provide the Jewish community better protections under US law. I didnt know seeking to protect a marginalized group was a bad thing. Guess i'll tell my Babushka its okay for people to hate her because Orange man bad.

I want to point out that I never said I overall ignore it, just that I didn't want to talk about it. Should I randomly shift this topic to be about Islamaphobia? I would rather not go off on a tangent that deserves its own thread. And you're throwing it around as if it's the end all be all of an arguement. "Well Warren is anti-semetic" as if everyone were perfect, I ever claimed she wasn't, as if that means the left is just as bad as the right, etc.

 

"I didn't know seeking to protect a marginalized group was a bad thing."

Here's the first paragraph from that article (emphasis mine):

"On Thursday, Donald Trump signed an executive order that defines Judaism as a nationality. In the process, he also effectively defined some 7.5 million American Jews as dual nationals, with dual loyalties. This is an anti-semitic trope with a long, ugly history. It was precisely that kind of logic which helped unleash the murderous pogroms that my great grandfather fled in Eastern Europe."

 

I wonder how much you understand what absolute crap is hidden behind nice words. Nazi Germany didn't happen overnight, as you seem so keen to remind us all. The "First they came for the" didn't start with the coming, it started with small words and messages that aren't overt until it's already a mindset that "these people are different from us". It started with speeches slowly turning others against their neighbors. 

 

I do not want to continue responding to someone who's just going to go back to "Well the left are bad too!" 

[SithLord]

6 hours ago, Marrow said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

So just to start I see you are already debating someone here so you can take your time to reply. 

 

If you have examples of people on the right that are good then why generalize? If your friend got banned off twitter or you parents then would you assume that they said something "offensive" because of others have?

 

Well we'll agree to disagree. What about the people that are racist to white people, what about people who say "kill cops"? Will you ignore these kind of things if it comes from the left? The only reason I'm asking is because you said you "might be biased".

 

This is again perspective I see a lot of violent and hateful things that come from the left, but are ignored because "you cant be racist to white people". As I said before "hate is hate" I dont care if the left has one racist and the right has a ton it is out duty as a civilization to call out hatred on all fronts. Also the reason the Republicans support Orange man is because he wins. In 2016 they didnt like him as much, but the public picked him (sadly) and theyre going to roll with him again to win. It kinda like how you said youre voting for Biden because you dont like Trump; same thing. They are supporting Trump because they dont like Biden and dont have any other strong candidates.

I generalize because specific individuals do not make the whole group great people. I generalize because I tend to see worse right-wing people than I see left-wing people, even if neither are great. The same can be said about many institutions. Just because one multi-billion dollar company is nice to its workers, pays them fairly, doesn't exploit foreign labor or tax loopholes, etc. doesn't mean as a hole it isn't a problem for the hundred or whatever others out there. I can allow for exceptions since I don't say every right-wing or anything to indicate I mean each and every one of them.

 

Btw, my friend does say offensive shit on Twitter. She tries to think through her arguments but frequently just gets mad and stays up late at night in a debate over Twitter. It's not very good since the platform isn't really designed for that kind of thing. Only so much you can say in a few characters. I also said her and I get into fights/disagreements about a lot of stuff. Sometimes it's become pretty heated, though other times we're able to shrug is off. She's pro-life while I'm pro-choice despite us agreeing on basically everything about the issue besides the "should abortion be legal" question. And basically everything that spews from Trump's mouth I'll get offended by and she'll shrug off like "Well, from a certain point of view." 

I also never said I really agree with them, just that they aren't outright offensive 100% of the time. My parents sometimes say some pretty shit stuff which I call them out on. My mom dislikes how much I pick apart media rather than just sitting back and enjoying it because I'll say something like "None of the new SW main cast are cis white males, that seems intentional" and she'll get mad that I bothered noticing. One time I mentioned how many governments America has interfered with and my mom outright got mad at me and said I was lying. I was citing my history textbook, btw.

 

I can agree to disagree. That's basically what I meant in my first post on this thread.

 

Racist to white people: I get mad at them? Those people are assholes. I'm not someone who claims only white people can be racist and even though institutions aren't as racist against white people, cultures and people can still be pretty racist. 

Calling to kill cops? Assholes. Unless it's in self-defense or through the judicial system, you shouldn't call for another person's death.

No, I don't. I call it out. And I think a lot of left people do, hence why a lot of left politicians have apologized for stuff. Biden, as an example @Arodash brought up with his horrible line about not being really black if you don't vote for him, was asked to apologize, which he did that same day.

 

And yeah, I'm biased. I'm pointing out that of course I'm going to defend people who I side with when the alternative is far worse in my eyes. I don't even like the things you're all mentioning. I acknowledges some people go too far. I acknowledged no one is perfect. I acknowledged I don't even fully support Biden, but it seems unless I'm completely screaming "YES! AN END TO CANCEL CULTURE!" then I'm the bad guy.

Guess what? I don't think telling an asshole to stfu is a bad thing. I don't think removing a white nationalist from YouTube where there are impressionable children and very few filters keeping them away from him (or really any extremist views) is a bad thing. I don't think removing a Twitter account from someone blatently lying over and over again is a bad thing. I think if someone's been proven to contribute to murderers and terrorists and other criminals then they should be called out and someone should look into why someone could potentially look at something from them and go down the blackhole of absolute shit. 

 

I dislike ANTIFA and the protests right now. I've never defended them. They're on the left, yes?

But here's what I see from the left vs the right.

The left is critical of each other, trying to make each other better and calling each other out for shit they don't like. I've heard countless complaints about Biden and trying to get him to choose a VP to make up for his faults. But with Trump, I hear nothing. Absolutely nothing. The only complaints about him I hear from are those who no longer want to even be considered right anymore because of his bullshit. I see Republicans refuse to mention anything about his tweets, his conduct, his bullshit. I see politicans intentionally keep in their asshole president just because of the bullshit politics.

 

I said I would vote for Biden because I don't want to support Trump, yes. I don't want to support Trump because he's a racist, sexist, classist, Islamphobic, anti-Trans piece of ****. If he apologized for even one of those things, I would be a lot more on the fence. But he's a narcissictic authoritarian who thinks he's above the law. I would vote for anyone before I voted for him, even if they were a Republican (maybe not Pence, but I'd have to look into it more). My parents are the same. Everyone in my family, right or left, was desperately hoping the Democratic candidate would be someone they wouldn't feel bad about supporting. They're relieved it's Pence while I'm pissed, but all of us still say we'll vote just to ensure we don't have a repeat of these last four years. 

I see people say they want to vote for Trump and I legitimately wonder what goes through their heads. Because it doesn't seem logical to me. I see Trump as that low of a person.

 

But that's for another thread.