Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I prefer the Blue Knights
55 titles  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly?" I admire the first type of person. I make no comment on the second | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly?" This is generally the assumption. That someone is expressing opinions that they don’t normally hold, in order to gain favour with a person or people. It’s all very assumptive though and usually based around the fact that the guy being accused is disagreeing with another guy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly?" The clinical definition tends to be “White knight syndrome is a term used to describe someone who feels compelled to “rescue” people in intimate relationships, often at the expense of their own needs. Although the term frequently refers to males who rush to save the perceived “damsel in distress,” anyone of any gender can technically suffer from White Knight Syndrome. In fact, since women are socialized to be emotional caretakers in relationships, it makes sense that they too can also demonstrate signs of White Knight Syndrome in their relationships, though it may present somewhat differently. However urban dictionary defines them as 1) A man who stands up for a womens right to be an absolute equal, but then steps up like a white knight to rescue her any time that equality becomes a burden. 2) A man who Promotes gender equality but practices special privilege for women. As to the original question, white knights exist in many online communities. I have encountered it more frequently when there is a mix of genders in said online community and where there is the possibility of sexual favours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly? This is generally the assumption. That someone is expressing opinions that they don’t normally hold, in order to gain favour with a person or people. It’s all very assumptive though and usually based around the fact that the guy being accused is disagreeing with another guy" It's a loaded term for sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. " Pretty much  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly? This is generally the assumption. That someone is expressing opinions that they don’t normally hold, in order to gain favour with a person or people. It’s all very assumptive though and usually based around the fact that the guy being accused is disagreeing with another guy It's a loaded term for sure. " Agreed, it’s often used as a dismissive term to undermine a person | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. " Then I don't reckon you get out much, White Knighting is very much taken to mean rescuing fair maidens and believing (wrongly) that there might be something in it for themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. Then I don't reckon you get out much, White Knighting is very much taken to mean rescuing fair maidens and believing (wrongly) that there might be something in it for themselves. " By "don't get out much", you mean "has seen through the pretence" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. Then I don't reckon you get out much, White Knighting is very much taken to mean rescuing fair maidens and believing (wrongly) that there might be something in it for themselves. By "don't get out much", you mean "has seen through the pretence" "White Knighting is the moral equivalent of waiting outside for girls to fall out of nightclubs at 4am  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly?" Quite so | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These days it's meaning has mostly been lost in favour of it being used as an insult to (usually wrongly) put someone down and quite often it's actually the accuser, rather than the accused, that is seeking to curry favour by their actions " I agree. But they do exist in the other context too, so the water is pretty muddy on this one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. " Yup, pretty much. The implication being that all men know women are inferior, and those that stand up for them are only doing it in the hope of a shag. A bit like politicians who “speak their mind” - as if all of them are bigoted arseholes, but only a few are brave enough to actually express that bigotry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"These days it's meaning has mostly been lost in favour of it being used as an insult to (usually wrongly) put someone down and quite often it's actually the accuser, rather than the accused, that is seeking to curry favour by their actions I agree. But they do exist in the other context too, so the water is pretty muddy on this one. " Oh absolutely they do, but in the vast majority of instances where the accusation is made it's more akin with my post - although the distinction can indeed be muddy for sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. Yup, pretty much. The implication being that all men know women are inferior, and those that stand up for them are only doing it in the hope of a shag. A bit like politicians who “speak their mind” - as if all of them are bigoted arseholes, but only a few are brave enough to actually express that bigotry. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. " This to a degree. I saw an interview with a singer, Ciara and her husband Russell Wilson and he was asked what he feared most. He replied, losing his wife. Boy oh boy did the manusphere go mad on that!!! That was simp overload! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. This to a degree. I saw an interview with a singer, Ciara and her husband Russell Wilson and he was asked what he feared most. He replied, losing his wife. Boy oh boy did the manusphere go mad on that!!! That was simp overload!" It's such a lovely sentiment and people have to turn it into a thing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. " "Simp" is from Internet culture, mainly Twitch. Men that gift,donate money and pay subs to Female Twitch streamers, mainly the type that sit there in little to no clothing with there tits being centre frame or similar. Basically using Twitch as a form of Soft-core cam thing to make money off men Internet and gaming culture then seeps out into the mainstream and the words get used in more broad sense after that to be anyone that just fanboys/girls over somone Bit like the word "Troll" which now used as a catch all term for someone being mean, when its more somone that baits people for a reaction using "Bait" which doesnt necessarily have to inflamatory. What people call "trolling" now is more like "Flaming" in internet culture | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. " Plus Cancel Culture and Political Correctness are two different things, linked, but different Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Basically watch what you say or you will be memory-holed Cancel culture is just what happens when you go against political correctness or the prevailing group think | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. Plus Cancel Culture and Political Correctness are two different things, linked, but different Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Basically watch what you say or you will be memory-holed Cancel culture is just what happens when you go against political correctness or the prevailing group think " It does sound very Orwellian. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’ve only ever heard accusations of “white knighting” come from misogynists attempting to undermine those men who are at least attempting to be decent people. The terminology seems to be falling out of use in favour of calling people “simps”. Different snarl worlds, same toxic source. See also people bleating about “cancel culture” instead of “political correctness” now. Plus Cancel Culture and Political Correctness are two different things, linked, but different Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Basically watch what you say or you will be memory-holed Cancel culture is just what happens when you go against political correctness or the prevailing group think It does sound very Orwellian." 1984, Animal Farm and Homage to Catalonia were written after Orwell personally saw what happened in the Spanish Civil War when the Communist sides started eating its self allowing Franco to take power. Animal Farm is more an allagory for the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do they exist? And if they do then what do women think of them...?" Crap riders mostly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. " People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you "Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states"I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do. Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works."It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night"So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing? I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works."Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not? Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong. There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council? Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong.
There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council?
Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion"I don't feel threatened by any of this, and feel that being mindful of reactions and blowback is less censorship and more "being a responsible adult". It's likely changes in US law will shift power dynamics with Big Tech companies. I feel this is a non issue. Before any knickers get in a twist, *I feel* not *you must feel* or *you may not say*. I have an opinion. Shock. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong.
There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council?
Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion
I don't feel threatened by any of this, and feel that being mindful of reactions and blowback is less censorship and more "being a responsible adult".
It's likely changes in US law will shift power dynamics with Big Tech companies.
I feel this is a non issue. Before any knickers get in a twist, *I feel* not *you must feel* or *you may not say*. I have an opinion. Shock."But should you be mindful of reactions if you are telling the truth for example? Is it being a responsible adult to self censor the truth in case of repercussions? Be them social or political. You personally may not feel threatend by it no, but you also may have no interest in History or Philosphy. Alot of people that do can see parralels to the early 20th century. You may think it hyperbolic, but you can see how people became guards at Aushwitz for example with how some people act against people they disagree with on Twitter. The Gina Corano thing for example, the comment was a bit heavy handed, but it was in no way anti semitic. Just pointing out it is dangerous to dehumunise people based on politics. People often forget it was not just Jews that where killed either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What do we mean by white knight? A man who will step in if he sees "anyone" being treated unfairly or a man who will step in if he sees someone he thinks is popular, finds attractive or can advance his cause being treated unfairly?" This is what I think it is and find it a very unattractive trait ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong.
There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council?
Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion
I don't feel threatened by any of this, and feel that being mindful of reactions and blowback is less censorship and more "being a responsible adult".
It's likely changes in US law will shift power dynamics with Big Tech companies.
I feel this is a non issue. Before any knickers get in a twist, *I feel* not *you must feel* or *you may not say*. I have an opinion. Shock.
But should you be mindful of reactions if you are telling the truth for example? Is it being a responsible adult to self censor the truth in case of repercussions? Be them social or political.
You personally may not feel threatend by it no, but you also may have no interest in History or Philosphy. Alot of people that do can see parralels to the early 20th century. You may think it hyperbolic, but you can see how people became guards at Aushwitz for example with how some people act against people they disagree with on Twitter.
The Gina Corano thing for example, the comment was a bit heavy handed, but it was in no way anti semitic. Just pointing out it is dangerous to dehumunise people based on politics. People often forget it was not just Jews that where killed either."Yes, you should. It might be that you choose to do it anyway, but you should *always* consider the context and potential impact of your words. As someone with degrees in history (plural), I find this argument inane in the extreme. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Yes, you should. It might be that you choose to do it anyway, but you should *always* consider the context and potential impact of your words. As someone with degrees in history (plural), I find this argument inane in the extreme."
The effects of social media on society are of course worth discussion, but this tendency the right has to go all 'freedom of speech is being destroyed this is just like nazi Germany!!!!' whenever someone says something stupid and suffers consequences is just juvenile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong.
There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council?
Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion
I don't feel threatened by any of this, and feel that being mindful of reactions and blowback is less censorship and more "being a responsible adult".
It's likely changes in US law will shift power dynamics with Big Tech companies.
I feel this is a non issue. Before any knickers get in a twist, *I feel* not *you must feel* or *you may not say*. I have an opinion. Shock.
But should you be mindful of reactions if you are telling the truth for example? Is it being a responsible adult to self censor the truth in case of repercussions? Be them social or political.
You personally may not feel threatend by it no, but you also may have no interest in History or Philosphy. Alot of people that do can see parralels to the early 20th century. You may think it hyperbolic, but you can see how people became guards at Aushwitz for example with how some people act against people they disagree with on Twitter.
The Gina Corano thing for example, the comment was a bit heavy handed, but it was in no way anti semitic. Just pointing out it is dangerous to dehumunise people based on politics. People often forget it was not just Jews that where killed either.
Yes, you should. It might be that you choose to do it anyway, but you should *always* consider the context and potential impact of your words.
As someone with degrees in history (plural), I find this argument inane in the extreme."Well we can agree to disagree then Personally i dont have a History degree(wish I had gone to uni), but History is an interest of mine. Mainly WW1-WW2. But I do have these debates with friends with History Degrees that would disagree with you. So you having a Degree and saying its an Inane arguement is an opinion and really means nothing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong.
There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council?
Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion
I don't feel threatened by any of this, and feel that being mindful of reactions and blowback is less censorship and more "being a responsible adult".
It's likely changes in US law will shift power dynamics with Big Tech companies.
I feel this is a non issue. Before any knickers get in a twist, *I feel* not *you must feel* or *you may not say*. I have an opinion. Shock.
But should you be mindful of reactions if you are telling the truth for example? Is it being a responsible adult to self censor the truth in case of repercussions? Be them social or political.
You personally may not feel threatend by it no, but you also may have no interest in History or Philosphy. Alot of people that do can see parralels to the early 20th century. You may think it hyperbolic, but you can see how people became guards at Aushwitz for example with how some people act against people they disagree with on Twitter.
The Gina Corano thing for example, the comment was a bit heavy handed, but it was in no way anti semitic. Just pointing out it is dangerous to dehumunise people based on politics. People often forget it was not just Jews that where killed either.
Yes, you should. It might be that you choose to do it anyway, but you should *always* consider the context and potential impact of your words.
As someone with degrees in history (plural), I find this argument inane in the extreme.
Well we can agree to disagree then
Personally i dont have a History degree(wish I had gone to uni), but History is an interest of mine. Mainly WW1-WW2. But I do have these debates with friends with History Degrees that would disagree with you. So you having a Degree and saying its an Inane arguement is an opinion and really means nothing
"My point was aimed at the idea I have no interest in history, not that my position is fact. My opinion is an opinion. Shocking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not? "I'm more worried by the fact that certain papers are perfectly happy to write large numbers of articles vilifying sections of society that have little power to defend themselves, and when those victims raise their voices they are the ones that get accused of abuse of power. And yes, I am thinking particularly about the transgender community at the moment, and the sustained campaign by the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Mirror, Sun and even at times the bloody Guardian against us. To the extent that the populists in both the government and the opposition, and the bloody house of lords have piled on the abuse against us. Also the BBC and ITV. Large swathes of the legal system, including more than a few judges. Billionaire authors. The list goes on... The only "cancel culture" that I can see is a large number of powerful people using every possible media platform to proclaim very loudly and publicly how they are being "cancelled" by people with no power that are piled upon every time they attempt to defend themselves against vile abuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
Self censorship stifles freedom of expression by the suppression of expression in order to comply or belong.
There is aslo an arguement that ToS is running rough shod over a states own rules like the 1st amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which should have more power the state or the Twitter Trust and Safety Council?
Do you think its acceptable for large Tech companies for example to dicate social discourse? It's like trying to dicate who can speak at speakers ccorner for example, even more so seeing as Twitter labels itself as a platform, area for public discussion
I don't feel threatened by any of this, and feel that being mindful of reactions and blowback is less censorship and more "being a responsible adult".
It's likely changes in US law will shift power dynamics with Big Tech companies.
I feel this is a non issue. Before any knickers get in a twist, *I feel* not *you must feel* or *you may not say*. I have an opinion. Shock.
But should you be mindful of reactions if you are telling the truth for example? Is it being a responsible adult to self censor the truth in case of repercussions? Be them social or political.
You personally may not feel threatend by it no, but you also may have no interest in History or Philosphy. Alot of people that do can see parralels to the early 20th century. You may think it hyperbolic, but you can see how people became guards at Aushwitz for example with how some people act against people they disagree with on Twitter.
The Gina Corano thing for example, the comment was a bit heavy handed, but it was in no way anti semitic. Just pointing out it is dangerous to dehumunise people based on politics. People often forget it was not just Jews that where killed either.
Yes, you should. It might be that you choose to do it anyway, but you should *always* consider the context and potential impact of your words.
As someone with degrees in history (plural), I find this argument inane in the extreme.
Well we can agree to disagree then
Personally i dont have a History degree(wish I had gone to uni), but History is an interest of mine. Mainly WW1-WW2. But I do have these debates with friends with History Degrees that would disagree with you. So you having a Degree and saying its an Inane arguement is an opinion and really means nothing
My point was aimed at the idea I have no interest in history, not that my position is fact.
My opinion is an opinion. Shocking."I said "may have", was more kind of a question not a statement of fact. As I dont know what your interests are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
I'm more worried by the fact that certain papers are perfectly happy to write large numbers of articles vilifying sections of society that have little power to defend themselves, and when those victims raise their voices they are the ones that get accused of abuse of power. And yes, I am thinking particularly about the transgender community at the moment, and the sustained campaign by the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Mirror, Sun and even at times the bloody Guardian against us. To the extent that the populists in both the government and the opposition, and the bloody house of lords have piled on the abuse against us. Also the BBC and ITV. Large swathes of the legal system, including more than a few judges. Billionaire authors. The list goes on...
The only "cancel culture" that I can see is a large number of powerful people using every possible media platform to proclaim very loudly and publicly how they are being "cancelled" by people with no power that are piled upon every time they attempt to defend themselves against vile abuse."Yup. It's a bunch of crap. In my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Political Correctness is originally a Marxist-Leninist term used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Please search "Lexico political correctness" for the Oxford Dictionaries definition of the term's current commonly accepted meaning. Then also search "RationalWiki political correctness" for a more nuanced discussion of the usage of the term *after* it was co-opted by the far right. While you are "correct" in the strictest and most technical sense, I feel it is misleading to invoke the term's origin in discussions regarding its current day-to-day usage. Etymological quibbling aside, the right are going to whine, project, and go out of their way to hurt people whatever words they choose along the way. There's no such thing as "cancel culture" anyway. It's *accountability* culture, and it's looong overdue. People being responsible for their words and actions? How very dare you
Stifling opinions and driving unlikable(at this point in time) political opinions always ends well
Debate is the antidote to bad ideas not trying to pretend it doesnt exist
All you do is make martyrs and entrench peoples mis guided views
Being deleted from social media this day and age is just the modern version of being unpersonned,but without the need of a firing squad. In the same way that modern peer to peer warfare mainly has changed electronic warfare between states
I'm not suggesting deleting anyone. I'm suggesting that people are responsible for their actions, and people may react to what people do.
Some seem to suggest that this is tyrannical censorship rather than... the way literally anything works.
It's more that leads to self censorship which again stifles debate, critical thinking, new ideas and promotes a weird group think. Debate is the antidote for bad ideas as i have said, not trying to ruin peoples lives
You may not want to delete people no, but trust me extreme groups on the Left and Right really do, in the literal sense aswell, they also hate centerists(logical people) with a passion. This is why these extremes actually have alot in common, even though they would hate admitting it. History doesn't necessarily repeat itsellf but it definelty rhymes, and modern cancel culture definelty has parralels to authoritarian ideologies, like Socialism and Facism. Jus they have figured out a way of doing it through social media instead of being disappeared in the night
So considering our audience, environment etc, is a bad thing?
I thought it was just, again, how literally anything works.
Somethings may work like that, thats soft censorship not self censorship though really. Certain papers not writing articles in a fear of upsetting their base for example, in the grand scheme of things I would say that is a bad thing, would you not?
I'm more worried by the fact that certain papers are perfectly happy to write large numbers of articles vilifying sections of society that have little power to defend themselves, and when those victims raise their voices they are the ones that get accused of abuse of power. And yes, I am thinking particularly about the transgender community at the moment, and the sustained campaign by the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Mirror, Sun and even at times the bloody Guardian against us. To the extent that the populists in both the government and the opposition, and the bloody house of lords have piled on the abuse against us. Also the BBC and ITV. Large swathes of the legal system, including more than a few judges. Billionaire authors. The list goes on...
The only "cancel culture" that I can see is a large number of powerful people using every possible media platform to proclaim very loudly and publicly how they are being "cancelled" by people with no power that are piled upon every time they attempt to defend themselves against vile abuse."Do you think that there is an orchestrated and organized attack by all of these papers against your community.. I am not saying that it does not exist but I have not seen it.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"misandrist.... not misogynist " Pretty sure the post way up there ^ meant misandrist.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do they exist? And if they do then what do women think of them...?" Interested in your definition of white knight | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
