I guess I see cancel culture as the vocal minority of the left amplified in importance by the right and not representative of the overall good done by progressive organizations. I'm not in favor of restricting dialogue or holding people responsible for opinions they had decades earlier which they have disavowed, as much as that is actually happening, but I have I also have some difficulty in seeing what separates cancel culture from boycotts. Platforms that choose not to host people any longer are doing it for their bottom line to avoid boycotts as far I'm concerned. It's not for their own political agenda but rather the political agenda of their users. They wouldn't care to do it if they didn't think it would hurt them not to. Thinking of cancel culture more broadly, you could argue much of what the left has done historically is attempt to fight back against a conservative culture that de-facto canceled everyone not in their own protected class. If you think the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and the left is now guilty of tactics it once fought against I would point you back to the comment you made in the other thread and say that this is a relatively benign example of the danger of such a view on tactics.

No, I am quite confident saying Cancel Culture is something growing out of the left academic circles and that is actively looking to engage and get conflicts with the far right.

That is not to absolve the far right which is abhorrent but the left started this train.

We saw it here in Canada on Uni campuses and then with the Human Rights Tribunals, who have pushed an agenda to attach penalty and even criminality to 'how you make a person feel with your words' that lead to the first examples of comedians being charged and fined for 'incentive jokes' that offended even hecklers.

That just is not going to fly in the US and as it encroached there, the far right then had an enemy to engage that made more people in the center side with them. The polarization was underway as were the bigger and bigger fights. And voila, 'The Advocate Groups' were fully needed again.

it was like somehow they preserved their jobs and relevance by just sowing more discord for them to then address and fix.


There will always 'interest group' who want these wars ('war on drugs', 'war on terror', 'Cold war', etc) as they benefit then from them and i see the radical left as very much wanting this particular war and for it to be as big and polarized as possible.

To your other points I do not see Cancel Culture broadly the same as boycotts.

Cancel culture is largely a tactic to bury a perceived enemy in a way that the content really does not matter.

Trump is correct (and you never hear me say that) when he says people should not apologize nor reply in any serious manner to the cancel culture hordes as they use your actual reply to bury you.

If as a member of the cancel horde, I accuse of you of being a 'racist' and you reply in earnest as to why you are not and apologize for any misconstrued comments with clarifications the play book is crystal clear on how to 'cancel' and bury you now.

You make that person reply endlessly to that same accusation despite the clarity.

You use their apology and clarification as if proof of wrong doing, even when its not by simply stating it is.

You keep the person defending "i am not a 'racist', 'X'" so much that they are effective canceled and must step down as there is no way to deal with the volume of mounting accusations. That is how they got Al Franken, and more people with good conscious to step aside. Bury them, dishonestly.

The right sees how overtly and dishonestly that tactic is being used and calls it 'the left eating its own', which is true. Sadly it then gives cover to the worst Right actors (like Trump) who can say due to 'cancel culture' they are not going apologize or acknowledge any of it.

So the lefts dishonest tactic ends up being the best cover for the Rights most disgusting practices, sadly.

You accused lots of posters here as being racist and then called them snowflakes when they dismissed the claim and asked for proof from you (ie: link a relevant post) to prove your accusation. How did that behavior fit into your whole cancel culture thingy within your "left is bad" Cuepeeverse? Granted, nobody apologized to you in the process, because nothing to apologize for, but was your behavior an example of cancel culture?

I'm not really familiar with much of Canadian domestic issues so I'm not going to comment on that. The two things I will say is again, I don't think cancel culture is representative of progressives generally and the bolded I strongly disagree with as well. The right has been growing their ranks and cultivating the left as the bogey man far longer than cancel culture has existed. Cancel culture may have played into their hands but they were luring the center to the right before that.



What makes you think this is a coordinated effort and not just the collective will of individuals? I see it as an emergent cultural phenomenon born out of viral nature of social media.

To bring this back around to the subject of the thread, do you think the left bears some responsibility for the existence of incels?

One definitely feeds off the other. Which is the chicken and which is the egg, sure, ....its not clear.

I think the viral nature of social media was the tool and amplifier. We saw this happening long before that though, in Canada, which culminated in the Human Rights commissions hauling people before them for speech offenses (mainly comedians), that were happening on University campuses.

Comedians materials are mostly known so they would find themselves ambushed with a hostile audience ready to 'take offense', heckle them and then drag them before the Commissions to 'correct their speech' and 'fine them'.

So that is why i see this predating social media and amplified by it, after.

Would you say you need to find 'bad people' on the 'other side' to fight and demonize too?

Oh boy, a cancel culture meltdown.

Nope.

Seems that you are awfully focused on the "bad people" on the "other side" of the political spectrum from you ITT. Heck your very post about bad people on the other side was mostly attacking the bad people on the other side.

And consider, you managed to get from supposed concern for "young men who can't get any" to airing your grievances about your perceptions of cancel culture in the left university students in no time flat.

He gets to finding fault with lefties faster than Lozen can do a whatabout post these days.

I'm sorry but I just dont see this at all and dont understand how you do without being too invested in some anti-feminism echo chambers. To even have such a point of view suggests you have participated in these kinds of discussions at length, but where? If I am right I highly encourage you to just stop entirely, disappear from those areas of the internet and cease contact with people whom agree with this point of view. Treat it like a diet, see what happens.

Well women probably dont really struggle to get roles as trash collectors if they applied in mass. It's the top level roles that have historically been dominated by men. Still are obviously but not to the extent that qualified women cant rise to those positions equally, which is great, but only a recent change in the last 20 years or so.

Well this is like saying where's White History month; the answer is every other day is international men's day. Men have had enough accomplishments throughout history that they have no particular need for a day to recognize them. Women on the other hand have not. And it's still kind of sad that it bothers you that one group would have recognition whether necessary or not. It doesnt impact you anymore than national giraffe day. It only seems to bother you because you just dont like women having it, which says more about you than it does about them.

Sigh, this is what I mean. You believe women are more disadvantaged in western society than men (no basis or evidence for that at all, unless you want to cherry pick or artificially manufacture problems) and their issues must take precedence over men's. Men face a ton of disadvantages that never get talked about in the mainstream (eg. why do they get harsher punishments in the criminal justice system for the same crime?). If no one is prepared to address women's and men's issues equally (that's what equality is about, right?) then no wonder so many young men are feeling hopeless and like the world is stacked against them.

(btw, on a related point, why are there many men prepared to fight for women's issues, but no women are prepared to fight for men's issues?)

I don’t really understand why “incel culture” is a thing now when it is actually much, much easier for socially awkward guys to find sexual partners than it was before the widespread acceptance of internet dating.

I am an anti feminist. How much do they want? They have passed equality and are mostly our betters. They double men in getting advanced degrees and the gulf is winding in their favor.

The cards are stacked against socially awkward boys and some of those boys will grow up and turn into violent men. These kids need our help not our ridicule.

'Focus' is not the issue.

The more extreme left is actively engaged in trying to push people on the right to more extreme views. The call out and polarization is the goal. The ability to then virtue signal is the goal. They will happily bury someone like Al Frakken or push him gladly to the right so they can justify their prior attacks justified in a 'see, he has now shown his true colours' type way, while not acknowledging that those were not his true colours and instead they pushed him that way. Thankfully Al did not go that path but many in the centre/right are as those on the left achieve the polarization they desire.

Lets limit this solely to the West.

Women are disadvantaged as opposed to men generally but that disadvantage is mostly legacy based, meaning the historical benefits many men enjoyed, means a large percent of men are still enjoying positions, wealth, etc disproportionately as compared to women.

that said i think the institutional disadvantages of current times have disappeared and women today and looking forward are on equal footing, and arguably an advantaged footing. The pendulum has swung and I think we will see in the decades to come it will need to swing back a bit as men are out paced greatly by women.

I think we see clear evidence of that in graduation rates from high school and university as the trend is that women will dominate in pretty much every single area. The wage gap issue has been most solved despite the politics at play to suggest it has not. Divorce laws greatly favour women but it is my position those will swing back soon due to the fact that we are now seeing, as some women become primary earners, men taking advantage of those same divorce laws and a societal revulsion to men with poor career prospects being paid to sit at home and play video games in their underwear (as one guy I know is doing) by very successful wives who are high earners. I don't think society tolerates that for long and the call for reforms will happen.


But men (mostly white men) have had decades of legacy advantage that still persists and cannot and should not be denied.

So now it’s an anti-feminism thread.

the world is stacked against young white men is an amazing take. like what kind of propaganda/brainwashing is required to end up at that kind of thought pattern.

What any of this has to do with incels I have no idea, but at least you got your chance to air your grievances with the "bad people" on the "other side" and you convinced me, those really are "bad people"! And since you just convinced me that people who focus on the "bad people" on the "other side" are indeed "bad people" I must necessarily conclude that you are a "bad person" for obsessing about the "bad people" on the "other side".

Funny how you, uke ask me a generalist question not specific to incels and i give you a generalist answer not specific to incels, and you complain.

Almost like you were just trolling and had no real desire to see the question answered at all.

And you do you re the attempt at framing 'if you call out bad behaviour or bad people you must therefore be the same'. A tired old tactic of trolls as well.

I'm just highlighting the hilarious hypocrisy of tangentially going off finding the "bad people" on the "other side" where your criticism is that they find "bad people" on the "other side". Either you get that you did what you criticized or you don't. I'm just here to laugh either way.

He seems to have convinced himself that incels are right about the world being stacked against them. Already an epic thread, rated five stars.

And Trolly enters the fray with his BS race baiting stuff and trying to make this all about his view of race not mattering. Nice.

qft