Again, were the accusations directed against any of these people actually wrong?
Did these people not deserve to be called out for things they said?
Did Brett Weinstein deserve to be hounded off campus because he said that the day of absence was a bad idea?
Did Dawkins deserve to be piled on for saying that church bells sounded nicer than the Adhan? (Which, incidentally, showed the hypocrisy of people like Hamid Dabashi - fine to Christianity, but criticize Islam? Islamophobe and racist.)
And you haven't answered the question I raised earlier, whether everyone mentioned in this thread deserves to be fired.
If anything, what this tells me is that you are incapable of any form of political nuance and simply assume that any criticism of something a person has said and done implies some total and complete negation of the person, and if you think like that it's not surprising you would come to believe in a meaningless concept like cancel culture. The reality is, all these people either fucked up, or behaved with outright malice, and the people who are angry with them have every right to be angry.
And what this tells me is that you don't have any principles. You're fine with people being fired, or having their lives ruined, but at the same time, you'll turn a blind eye when it's a cause you happen to agree with.
And yet you want us to feel sad for people who have been called out for terrible actions..
Sad? Not necessarily. As I've already stated, some people are indeed terrible.
I'm not sad for the likes of Stefan Molyneux, but I am sad for the likes of Amelie Zhao for instance.
Not that you care. On this very thread, Trunkage lied about what I said, I called him out for the lie, and I'm the one who got reprimanded for it, so if I can't expect consistency from this site, why should I from you?
Why is it a single phenomenon at all?
I cannot see a single reason to associate any of these things with each other. There is nothing in common between people expressing anger at a well known children's author for seemingly devoting her entire life to some bizarre crusade against trans people, professional bad actors fabricating rumours that someone is a paedophile to try and get them fired, and a small youtube personality being dogpiled on twitter by a bunch of white people trying to prove how not racist they are. These things are completely unrelated.
It's absolutely the same phenomena of social stigmatization, on the intent to silence people and ruin their lives. I fully agree that not all targets are equally heinous (or heinous at all), but if you're operating under a principle of "free speech for me, then not for thee," then that's not a principle I support. I wouldn't lump Lindsay Ellis in with Alex Jones for instance, but I absolutely would lump her in with Amelie Zhao, Kiera Drake, and Laurie Forest.
I mean, as a trans person in the UK who was, at the time, receiving therapy for gender dysphoria, let me say that that period when JK Rowling decided to throw her transphobic hat in the ring was truly frightening. The kind of language used to talk about trans people in the British media during that time was of a ferocity we had not heard since the AIDS panic (and that's not an exaggeration, many of the ways trans people were talked about were literally the way gay people were talked about in the 80s). I am so, so glad for all of the cis people who took it upon themselves to push back, even just by getting angry on twitter, because if that hadn't happened a lot of trans people, including me, would have felt truly, truly alone.
And I am not going to sit here and listen to you compare that to what happened to Lindsey Ellis.
No. Of course you wouldn't. You've defended people acting horribly, because they happen to align with your sphere of interest.
A man who goes around misgendering trans people for a career, who describes LGBT people as mentally ill and who has been repeatedly forced to apologise for saying extremely fascist and racist shit.
Let's take that as being writ, does that mean the Berkerly riots should have happened?
If you disagree with someone (not you personally), actually lay out an argument, because anyone can chant a slogan over and over.
A man who founded a violent hate movement who march around in uniforms assaulting people, who has at the very least dabbled in holocaust denial and neo-Nazi conspiracy theories, who also really hates transgender people and who once showed up at a protest with a fake sword, ostensibly to celebrate the murder of a Japanese leftist politician by a fascist terrorist.
Gavin McInnes is terrible, I agree with you there.
Again, at this point I have to ask again what "cancelling" even means? Does any criticism of someone's politics at all count as "cancelling" them?
Years ago, Hirsi Ali came to Oz. A bunch of protesters tried to stop the event from happening. The event was cancelled due to security concerns. And, for shits and giggles, one of the protesters went on the radio saying that they didn't actually want to stop the talk from happening.
So yes, that's an of being cancelled - you disagree with something someone has to say, instead of arguing your case, you just try to shut them down.
That's not even counting the countless death threats from Islamists.
Oh no. Not Carl Benjamin! Who could possibly disagree with Carl Benjamin?
I do, for one, on various issues. Doesn't mean I support censorship.
An indigenous rights activist who's tried to bring attention to the epidemic of domestic violence in indigenous communities in Oz, who on at least one occassion, was stopped from giving a speech by activists.
Like Benjamin, I agree with her on some things, and disagree on others, but I'd never try to shut her (or almost anyone) down because my beliefs conflicted with theirs.
Oh, the guy who ran an anti-SJW cringe youtube channel.
I mean, if that's not the height of respect for other people's opinions, I don't know what is. A+ for class.
So because you disagree with his opinions, that supports being fined?
See, this is why I said you have no principles. You're fine with some people being cancelled, and others not.
The fact that you could even imagine that "straight white male" is a slur is is pretty much the perfect illustration of what I'm talking about.
I don't have to imagine, I've seen the footage, seen it in real life, and seen it in published work.
And honestly, I don't even know what you're talking about, because slurs aren't cancel culture, and as slurs go, that's such a minor one.
Being visible, being willing to publicly criticize things that are bad, is action. It can make people who don't have the strength or the clout or the ability to speak out themselves feel less alone. It can make people think harder about the way they behave and, yes, it can make people more afraid to say disgusting shit. Participating in public life is important, because if we don't do that then we concede the floor to the people who are
willing to participate, who don't have to feel afraid or moderate their opinions or think twice before attacking people they've never met. Sure, expecting some kind of reward or approval from posting on the internet is pretty silly, but that doesn't make it a bad thing to do.
And this is a great example. What are you supposed to do to make that thing come true?
Do you make a bomb in your basement and threaten to blow up parliament unless they legalize gay marriage?
Well, marches, petitions, written work, representation in media, etc.
None of us actually have the power to legalize gay marriage, or to make any kind of sweeping policy decision by ourselves. All we can do is express our preferences, participate in public life, and vote.
I agree, but voting is bottom-tier effort. Yes, I voted to allow gay marriage in the referendum we had here a few years back, I don't expect brownie points.
Hawki doesn't care what they say. Hawki has made that abundantly clear.
Yeah, you don't care what I say either. Maybe that's why you have to make shit up about what I've said, then fall silent when I call you out for it, and then walk away free when I'm reprimanded for calling you out on your lies.