antlers
4085
What this is really about is liberals over 60 being uncomfortable with the rhetoric of anti-racism, because our slightly-condescending rhetoric of solidarity without examination of structural issues was certainly good enough, wasn’t it? (I speak as someone guilty of this…)
Sigh.
There’s nothing in this statement about the US constitution, or the first amendment (I have not and will not read the paid article). But if that’s your take on this, I guess my point would be that protection from ‘speech punishment’ from government action alone is blinkered and insufficient.
Banks, utilities and the places you buy your food and petrol from are not ‘government’, but if they collude and shun you (i.e. deny service) because you say (or are) something they don’t like, is your speech still ‘free’?
There’s always another bank, of course, but in our ever-contracting global economy, there seem to be fewer and fewer players on the board… Well, it’s cause for concern. That said concerns are shared by right wing fucking fascists is, well, the perennial problem.
So I guess if @Timex, random internet dude shuns you, who gives a shit. However, if @Timex, debonair billionaire playboy shuns you, consequences may be a little different - especially if he owns your bank, your ISP, your email address and your local newspaper (soon to be headlining you every day). Oh, but he doesn’t work for the government. Everything’s A-Ok!
The US Constitution is so 18th century, man. Governments don’t mean shit any more.
What are hate speech laws if not constraints on the ability to shame certain classes of people? Even our dumb little island has those.
Menzo
4087
Considering many of the very same people bleating on about being “cancelled” by their banks are the ones who said the world would end if a cake baker was forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, I have very little concern for their point of view on this.
The unfortunate reality for these nincompoops is that rich, white male Republicans are not a protected class here in the US, and thus they are not due any special rights to force people to listen to their nonsense.
Agreed, as individuals we are free to ignore them. But that isn’t the same as certain parts of society shunning them when there’s a huge power differential between the private entities involved.
Menzo
4089
Let’s not get confused: the people who are having their bank accounts closed and ISPs shut off are not misunderstood people who are just saying things “The Man” doesn’t want them to say. These are the most vile people on the planet spreading lies and misinformation. Maybe if they lied less they could keep their internet connection.
Also, as you say there are always more banks and ISPs. Can you name one who has truly been unable to live in modern society?
I think it would be helpful for you to name the people you think are examples here, because it’s not like this is happening at a scale where there are huge swaths of society that can’t find a bank to work with.
Could someone post the article so that I know what we are arguing about?
I mean, it’s the NYTimes Editorial board, so I feel like they are just getting pissy because people keep pointing out that they are the dumbest fucks on the entire planet. But maybe there is more to it than that.
CraigM
4091
MTG should be shunned. Her words and behaviors called out and criticized at every turn.
Alex Jones should be shunned. Hell he should be arrested as many of his words go beyond mere speech and do cross several legal lines (his lawsuit losses re: Sandy Hook support this as well)
The local militia whack job or KKK leader should be shunned. You go around sporting their symbols and ranting about replacement theory and harassing anyone who isn’t your flavor of white Christian? Free association motherfucker, you are not welcome in any space I control.
Hell even that creepy dude with poor hygiene at the local game store who is just the worst and makes every female community member vaguely uncomfortable with their behavior, such that they feel vaguely menaced by his presence? It is completely within the rights of the business to kick them out. Even if nothing they did was illegal.
DoubleG
4092
What’s the rule here on posting articles? Happy to do it.
This is sort of a paradox when you think about it, you’re asking me to track down someone erased from society, uh, how, exactly?
Plus it’s irrelevant. It’s not even my point that it has happened, just that we’re getting to a stage where, y’know, it might? And I’d like it not to? Even if it means Magic The Gathering (dunno who that is) can buy food.
Injustice doesn’t matter unless it’s ‘at scale’? Can you at least give me the exact number on ‘huge swaths of society’ I must meet to find your truest scotsman on my quixotic quest? May I travel back in time to the 50’s and point out all the Black people who couldn’t get these things?
Technically we’re not, since everyone’s arguing with me* and I didn’t even read it.
* Merely for pointing that ignore and shun are different words!
If you think that is what the quote from the article is talking about, what examples of people in America suddenly and systematically being denied service because of their speech can you offer? After all, the quote says that Americans are losing that right, doesn’t it? And that implies it has actually happened to some number of people.
But it actually hasn’t. So we know that the article is not talking about that. It’s talking about the threat of personal freedom of association, the threat of vocal disagreement, the threat of deciding not to pay for someone’s views when you don’t like them. The threat of criticism.
Menzo
4095
I guess we have very different definitions of “injustice” when the people we’re talking about here are Alex Jones and KKK leaders.
Could you propose what the alternative is? Are you suggesting that every business should be forced to cater to everyone no matter what? Where does that stop? Would you force Disney+ to carry a KKK documentary, for example? Could a book publisher say “no thanks” to anyone at all? Would all those “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs have to come down?
DoubleG
4096
The article eventually makes this distinction 14 paragraphs in:
It is worth noting here the important distinction between what the First Amendment protects — freedom from government restrictions on expression — and the popular conception of free speech — the affirmative right to speak your mind in public, on which the law is silent. The world is witnessing firsthand, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the strangling of free speech through government censorship and imprisonment. That is not the kind of threat to freedom of expression that Americans face. Yet, something has been lost; the poll clearly shows a dissatisfaction with free speech as it is experienced and understood by Americans today.
They’re positioning this as a new thing. The point you brought up about powerful groups silencing the opinions of the non-powerful has always happened in America. What has changed is that those in-groups, like NY Times opinion writers, can face widespread criticism for their speech over social media.
The greatest crime you can commit in America against free speech is to point out that someone said something racist.
This is what (fuck the fucking) New York Times is actually sad about.
The second greatest crime is accurately describing the preferred policy outcomes of the Republican Party.
This is a spectacular evisceration of the NYT’s arguments.
I’ll let it speak for me.
CraigM
4099
Ayup. I’ve written to that many times in the ‘Cancel Culture’ thread.
No, I’m suggesting some businesses should because they are too monolithic, monopolistic and powerful and the services they offer too essential to human life/wellbeing. Plus, didn’t you mention the whole gay wedding cake thing? So we at least agree that businesses should be forced to do things their employers/employees find distasteful in some scenarios regardless of what they consider to be ‘right’? That they, in fact, don’t have the right to shun certain groups of people?
Hell, it happens everywhere, everywhen. I just kinda feel you’re all just focussing on right wing fucking idiots of the now, as if I care one jot about their ‘right’ to their twithorrea outbursts. I’m arguing the general case based on recent past injustices you all seem to be very aware of but don’t think apply because these ‘others’, well, they’re the bad ones, this time.
That case had nothing to do with speech. It was a case of denying service based on identity, which is an entirely different matter.
Again, who in America is being denied essential services like banking because of their speech?
CraigM
4102
Here’s the fundamental difference between the gay couple being denied service, and Alex Jones.
One is being denied based on a fundamental aspect of who they are. Something not chosen, but part of their very being.
The other is a bloviated sack of shit being denied for choices and actions they take, which they made completely of their own free will, and done so in a manner that causes much harm and distress to others through malicious behavior. Jones could, at any point, choose not to say things that cause pain, harassment, and threats to others.
Menzo
4103
I imagine you know what those criteria are and could share that in the thread dedicated to this very specific line of thinking. It feels like you’re repeating topics that have been covered extensively there.
In general I’m personally not interested in talking about Cancel Culture because I don’t think it’s an actual thing that is either real or something to be seriously concerned about.
Businesses are disincentivized from turning away customers because capitalism. When they do there’s usually a reason, and it’s usually because doing business with some people will cause a lot of others to stop visiting that establishment. Nothing you can do about that.
