isn't it being-a-racist-101 that when pressed on what you meant by flippantly tossing out cockroaches you insist that of course you are only referring to the purest evil of evils?

More so does his current line of trolling have any relevance to the topic at hand? Is he going to connect those dots?

or was it just a successful troll, as in attempt to draw people off topic by using inflammatory statements that are more often lies than not, since people tend to reply to lies more commonly?

Regardless, Trolly gonna troll. It is what he does.

Maybe in America, I dunno. I'm Irish and have zero problem referring to Irish organised criminals as cockroaches, scumbags or monsters. Wouldn't have a problem referring to Irish American gangsters such as Jimmy Coonan or the late and not so great aforementioned Mr Bolger in such terms either.
That said we don't have any dog whistles over my way. We call you a scumbag or cockroach, it's because you're probably well, a scumbag or cockroach, really. Has nothing to do with your ethnicity, race sexuality or creed
But again that's over my way. Maybe in America, it can mean all sorts of things due to them all apparently hating each other. and having seemingly piss poor race relations anyway

But the rest of the world isn't America, so for those from countries with better race relations, yeah it's all about the context. Which is why I said this:
In my initial reply.

I'm co-signing as someone interested in this, generally.

Based on the bolded, there isn't enough of a dispute on this point to continue the conversation.

I don't know about using the report button, but I can assure you that people like juan valdez complained bitterly about the moderation of the politics forum. If you want a taste of it, just search for posts by him that have the word "moderation". He was far from the only one.

I don't know anything about the moderation of the BFI forum.

BFI is almost completely unmoderated. Afaict, QP is the only person to actually get booted from there.

No small feat

"cancel culture" is a boogeyman invented by the far right to protect their systemic privileges. Stop watching Fox news

Would be if were not yet just another Trolly throwaway lie. I was not booted from there and was posting right up until it got closed.

Ok what name would you give what we see in the OP or are you saying those are 'far right' operatives pretending to be lefty students?

BFI is still open. I thought you got exiled from there? Apologies if that’s not true.

It was the covid thread that was closed that had all the fighting with Tooth. I posted in that until the end. Monty got threatened with a ban for what the mod called trolling empty posting.

I also post rarely in the Tesla thread and a couple more. Never been banned.

You should start threads there like you are doing here. You better fit the personality of that forum these days, so give it a try and see how it goes. Just toss in a financial angle when bringing up topics that concern you like incels or frustrate you like transgender issues, heavy people and lefties.

Say you were one of the various minorities(but it applies to other things as well) that was effectively canceled legally and otherwise marginalized/oppressed by society for ages. Then you finally start making some headway and getting a taste of freedom--how many times/decades are you going to want to entertain the same arguments from the same people over and over that have the ultimate goal of putting you back in that box? Then how about we crank it up a little more so the silly **** is actually taking up so much of the airspace that you can't get anything else productive done. While you're protecting their freedom they're using it to continue stifling yours--neat little trick isn't it?

Things remaining the same/no change tends to favor the conservatives--they're fully incentivized to just run around throwing **** at the walls

Sure I would agree if taken to the extremes that the school and/or students should be able to cancel them. If there is a parade of comedians who focus solely on off colour gay and minority jokes then ya, someone is running an agenda on you to put this in your face and keep it there.

But i think in most instances the opposite is true. These comedians and speakers are a minority of events and easily avoided but those who don't like and easily attended by those who do.

The more activist elements on the left is going out of their way to try and find these events and scour the individuals to see if they meet the purity tests and then to cancel them if they do not. Kevin Hart hosting the Oscars would be a high level example. Searching for bakeries that won't make a gay themed cake, is a more local one. It is very much agenda driven and is a movement looking for fights. They want to out 'bad people', and create 'bad people'.

I think it is mistake to only recognize the deplorable right (as many in this forum do) while not calling out the activist left (which many won't do) who are often focused on finding and provoking the deplorables so they can signal their virtues in contrast.

There are crazies everywhere in the spectrum. But in your posts on the right we are identifying elected officials to get majorities and pass laws like the "don't say gay" bill. On the left you are complaining about some kids on college campuses. It is vastly unequal.

You know that's not the name of the bill right?

I've stated it is unequal. Thus why it is so misguided and shortsighted for those on the left always trying to find and poke and fight with those deplorables on the right, even if they have to wake them up.

I mean, it certainly gives them more deplorables to point and doing very horrible things, so if their point is to only be right about that, they win on that point. But they are losing the war and the people who get subjected to the deplorables on the right end up collateral damage.

How would you suggest going about doing something though?

Would it change his point if he called it the Parental Rights in Education bill?

So can we summerise

Polarization that is us disagreeing with others on what we want and believe is generally good. The worse things are then the more disagreement the better

Polarization where the right increasingly builds a huge swathe of the elctorate that dont engage with anyone else and inceasingly supports/believes whatever is being pushed to them is very bad and potentially catastrophic for a democracy,

Do we have any substantial disagreement on this? If not we have actually acheived something in a thread

I don't think the dean has to worry about the scenario you described in his quote, as people will tire of such protests long, long before that could ever happen. There is also the point that if it becomes the norm, then it wouldn't get attention, so there would be no point to it.

A scenario we actually see happening in many countries around the world is that protesting is punished and disobedience is outright dangerous. We also see liberal democracies encroaching more on citizen freedoms, so I'd be more vary of going in the direction of trying to clamp down on these things too much.

As for cancel culture itself, I don't have much to say. I think a few of the things it brings to the table are good points, but for the most part I find it very stupid.

It narrows political discourse, as even well-meaning politicians and pundits fear accidentally saying the wrong things, so we get a lot of statements and reactions that are done by script. Most people can smell that a mile away, so the discourse just seems fake. Similarly, attacks on language itself and manners of speaking often seem misguided, I'd focus on people who persecute or want to harm others.

A worry I often see touted is that cancel culture can make it into law. In some countries that is probably a bigger concern than others, depending on how solid their rights to free speech is. I'd say the concern is warranted, the western world is just now slowly emerging from 300-400 years of conservative moral censorship of expression and discourse, where completely non-harmful sexuality, nudity and artistic expression has been forbidden, even to the point of jail or having your life ruined. We shouldn't be naive to the idea that many want to make their moral outrages into law. However, the rabid frenzy about how cancel culture will end of society as we know it that gets touted by certain politicians and pundits is excruciatingly stupid, and a large reason why I just zone out when cancel culture is debated (this thread exempted).

Kevin Hart chose not to do the oscars. They asked him to apologize in the present for his past comments and he declined.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrEjHFCFe83/

It's not unreasonable for an organization to want to ask someone hosting their event to make clear that they don't currently harbor views that that organization doesn't want to be associated with. His career is not canceled. Chappelle was not canceled. J.K Rowling has not been canceled. I understand you're just using Hart as a prominent example but outside of some people whose criminal behavior has been discovered, most supposed victims of cancel culture still have careers, just one or more organizations don't want to be affiliated with them anymore, which is reasonable. Weinstein exemplifies the power disparity aspect of canceling. He operated with impunity for years, it was an open secret, and it took the "liberal mob" of the metoo movement for victims to feel confident enough that their careers wouldn't be canceled by him if they spoke out. It's about leveraging a group voice to hold powerful people to account when individuals couldn't do it on their own. You can disagree with organizations bowing to this pressure but they are just trying to head off a boycott from their own consumers. Their own consumers part is important because it doesn't function in the across the aisle manner that the right tries to scare their base with. Weinstein was only held to account because he operated in an industry which is mostly liberal. Liberals are not going to be able to "cancel" anyone who operate in a realm not controlled by the left.

In terms of the gay cake thing, it depends on what you think the aims of such liberal activists are. If it is to find businesses who are unconstitutionally denying business to people because of their sexual orientation, that seems good to challenge to me. If it's to harass businesses who are expressing their first amendment right by not agreeing to write something on a cake, that's obviously not good. Either way, I don't see this rising to the level of serious concern and I don't think this kind of behavior is exclusive to the left.

In terms of the content of your OP, I agree with the professor in the video that context matters. Bigots don't need to be given a platform in the name of free speech. I'd also agree with Scarborough that it would be to everyone's benefit for liberals to defeat conservative ideas in debate when possible. You might change the minds of conservatives in the audience by doing so. It's not clear from that video what these students were protesting unfortunately so it's hard to say if protest was more warranted than debate. If people within academia are concerned about discussing or publishing ideas that aren't intended to harm but might run afoul of some people's interpretation of acceptable liberal discourse and this causes a shrinking of the free exchange of ideas, that's obviously a problem. I'm not in that world so I'm not sure how deep this runs but I believe that there is some legitimate concern over it. I think universities have a responsibility to uphold the sanctity of the free exchange of ideas that might supersede the concerns of individual stake-holders but that's not an inviolable law.

I once wore a mask while visiting a friend at his house when I had a bad cold.

As a side note, my wearing a mask invariably improves my appearance.

(Apparently Cuepee believes the same thing about himself. )