Well considering I would extend Canadian healthcare and the social safety net far beyond where it is today I will just call this out for what it is.

The normal tactic of trying to smear anyone not agreed with, with being right, conservative, Republican, etc.

It is boring.

Good summary.

But lefty cancel culture is not just aimed at the high end scalps, such as professionals in the entertainment industry. They love those scalps but they are happy to cost any average Joe or Jane their job, if they get off message on FB or Twitter, etc.

And as I have said, I think the left is far more willing to use smears and lies, than the right. The right uses the law which is deplorable and the left counters by trying to ruin you as a person. Ruin your reputation. Ruin your future job prospects.

And when it is proven they are lying it almost never gets called out by fellow lefties or even the centre/moderate left who may hate the tactics.

There is complicity in the silence and an emboldening. It is why the far left gets increasingly bold and worse with their lies. There really is no consequence for being busted on it and it works often. It is tactic 1 for Trolly in this forum. You can bank on almost anything he is accusing someone of being more likely a lie intended to smear than a truth. And he knows that.

This forum has some moderate posters who love to show their disdain when some people say things they think are inappropriate. But they don't ever, as much as suggest Trolly should stick to the truth. Because 'sides'. If he posts the same way in the BFI, he would be called out constantly. Told 'cite or ban'. Again because 'sides'.

Lol. Threads evolve. Specifically, YOU evolved it. It isn't my fault that you said something silly. Let us repeat the silly thing you said:
My goodness that was silly. You may have wanted this thread to just be about leftist cancel culture, but sadly, YOU screwed up your own thread and started droning on about how it is some big mistake to only criticize the right without criticizing the left.

Sorry, but terming it a mistake to not do a WHATABOUTTHELEFT is just silly. If you want to only talk about the left - fine! If people want to only talk about the right - fine! There is no need to be forced to do WHATABOUTISMS. In particular, because the "cancelling" on the right involves elected majorities passing laws to ban things like schools talking about gay people, it is very reasonable that one might wish to focus more on that then worrying about heckling on college campuses. If you want to obsess over these things, well that is on you, but it isn't a mistake if the rest of us don't follow you along.

I agree with whoever said that cancel culture is something of a loaded term promoted by the right wing derposphere. But with that caveat, I think this post is a fair description of why people on the right and left do what they do.

And i'll take some credit for that too as that has been my consistent position.

The deplorable right seeks to cancel via laws and gov't control.

The cancel culture left is trying to control people's thoughts and words and they are growing increasingly more provocative and emboldened due to successes and figuring out a formula that is very intimidating as it does not require fact or truth. Just volume.

As well as the support for polarisation which I'd never encountered from the left before P, there was also the most extraordinary attack on being fair and reasonable. We actually had discussions where reasonableness was argued as a bad thing. So many of them actually support the lying and they deploy a vast range of tactics against anyone who doesn't and speaks up. Some reasonable people even said to me I should accept the situation because that's what most of the forum wanted.

Here's a list of tactics which probably isn't complete. If you are defended anyone from unreasonable attack by the mob then

The mob will pile on you
You are white knighting or carrying water
You will be accused of agreeing with them
Bad faith
Bad look
Calls for you to be banned
Lies about you only posting to defend unaceptable people
Wilful missinterpretations of your posts to attack you
and the classic: Tone Policing which was like a serious crime

Part of this is promoting polarization. The idea is to be ridiculous about someone on the right and then attack anyone who point out that the attack isn't fair or reasonable - they are the real target. But I've never really seen it outside the P crowd. It's more fascinating as a phenomena than something to be worried about afaics

I dont really agree with that. i think PC has been a huge success in my lifetime and it's been a very good thing

Where I do agree is that while words/etc matter a lot, they matter very little compared to actions. I think we have got way too carried away with focusing on words/etc and that's very damaging if only because it consumes all the politcal oxygen that is needed to concentrate on actions.

I also agree that the demand for perfection or purity is bad. Apart from a few of us (that is a joke) there are no perfect people.

Dude you're taking this way too seriously good god man.

If the commies up there are torturing you--learn morse code and use your eyelids and we'll try to come get you

This seems like a smear and lie against the left.

One different between left and right cancel culture is the leftist cancel culture is more likely to target bad guys while right-wing cancel culture is more likely to target good guys. If we can agree on that, then maybe we can have a reasonable discussion about the tactics of cancel culture.

Republicans elected the most egregious and prolific liar to the presidency in modern history, a proponent of the blatant lies and smears of birtherism and Obama being a secret Muslim. These were things widely promoted in conservative media and talk radio with huge reach. The whole January 6th event only happened because Trump and Republican boot lickers promoted the outright lie that the election was stolen. Nothing even close to these things have come out of the left. This is not even new. John Kerry? Death panels? This seems to be getting worse in the conservative sphere. The party has shifted from Reagan/Bushism garden variety character assassination to the tea-party to Trumpism. You can't have a GOP political career in some places if you acknowledge the election was valid.

You clearly have forgotten about the time a lesbian heckled a low level comedian 15+ years ago. Did you miss the OP sharing that critical news story? You think he just discovered that critical point in time? Hardly. He has had that story waiting to be unleashed for maximum impact, and all the things you are talking about are apparently a byproduct of behavior like that. Take away the heckle incident and the storming of the capitol never takes place. Quite the butterfly effect!

Dude some baker also got trolled.

We are talking crises in our culture here.

Hopefully the candlestick makers have been protected.

All those lines in the water and he finally got a fish to bite seven pages in.

I would disagree with your theory that PC is a success but then again you and I differ on wanting hate speech laws. Imho hate speech laws that would potentially criminalize words and expression of thoughts are the dumbest and dangerous legal proposition imaginable. Without even getting into the lack of trust giving any governmental body controlled by either party this power and the problem is enforcement issues, punishing bad speech never get rid of such beliefs or thoughts. It will simply drive the stupid in deeper and will create more incentive to act on racist or bigoted beliefs. It's like a balloon, let the people ***** instead of holding it in and later exploding. People who say stupid and hurtful things should be told they are being stupid and hurtful. They would only be punished for acting on such beliefs

That video of law students shouting down speakers certainly doesn't make me feel confident they will fulfill their roles as rule makers and enforcers.

I would disagree with your theory that PC is a success but then again you and I differ on wanting hate speech laws. Imho hate speech laws that would potentially criminalize words and expression of thoughts are the dumbest and dangerous legal proposition imaginable. Without even getting into the lack of trust giving any governmental body controlled by either party this power, punishing bad speech never get rid of such beliefs or thoughts. It will simply drive the stupid in deeper and will create more incentive to act on racist or bigoted beliefs. It's like a balloon, let the people ***** instead of holding it in and later exploding. People who say stupid and hurtful things should be told they are being stupid and hurtful. They would only be punished for acting on such beliefs

That video of law students shouting down speakers certainly doesn't make me feel confident they will fulfill their roles as rule makers and enforcers.

Yup.

I had the exact same discussions (as mentioned) in the early days of MMA as a George St Pierre (GSP) in debate and arguments against his fierce rival BJ Penn and his zealous fan base.

Penn fans were known for being particularly passionate and also quite a bit deplorable. They loved Penn's bad boy image and disdain for authority and disrespect for his fellow athletes. That was in large part the draw. Where as GSP was seen as an overly pristine fighter. A boy scout in a league of toughies.

Sporting fanatics can be the worst for acknowledging any truth or reality when it comes to the opposing side. At the peek of any rivalry you could pretty much make up any derogatory lie and lob it at the opposing side, no matter how fantastical and obviously untrue, and you would not expect fans on your side to correct you. Even if they thought it was crazy, no one would bother to correct it. (Trump Kraken lady is an example in policits where the Right accepted her crazy as it was on their SIDE or team).

A fellow GSP fan DM'd me and called me out because I was correcting someone on 'our side' who was repeating obvious lies and smears about BJ Penn. He was truly incredulous as to 'why i cared' if indeed I was a GSP to correct that. Just let it stand and be repeated.

I guess i am still old school in that regard wanting to debate (and argue fiercely at times) topics based on belief and merit as much as possible. People can be wrong, which is fine, but the belief they are not is key.

Forum debate however has shifted. Truth or accuracy is less important and burying the person under volume is. It has been learned the content of the argument actually mostly ceases to matter, if you bury it in varied volume of accusations, such that anyone coming to the debate would be too exasperated to try and chase all the threads down to determine what is in fact true and what is false.

Some here hate the Rogan debate being referenced but it is the exemplar use case here. Accused of first being an Anti Vaxxer which ignited the cancelling right. He quickly then became a 'racist', 'Far right GOPer', 'war mongerer'.

Each and every one of those claims easily (but time consuming) to investigate to see how wrong they were, in fact, outside the basis for the anti-vax claim depending on how loosely you want to define that. And as a result most here, simply stated they would not review any facts or materials and instead draw conclusions about him based on sides (who they tended to believe more).

That is the goal of Cancel Culture. That is the goal of that very successful debate tactic.

the cancel culture left gives themselves this pass and power as they start by pushing anyone who disagrees with any elements of their position over to the Right. Again Rogan MUST be right wing (despite that not being true, not even a little bit) because we disagree with him. Now he is far game to attack.

And more than one person has tried to use it against me. More than one has tried to incite others to use that tactic on me. Accusations or allusions to 'extremist Republican', 'nazi', 'trans phobe', to say I cannot be left wing and must be right wing because we disagree on some areas.

Anyway it is not like this is not all obvious at this point no matter how loud the protestations and denials.

Doesn't look all that different than the british parliament occasionally so I don't know about that

Don't really agree.

L:eft cancel culture targets dissent and purity (or lack thereof).

You can be as left as left gets and you say one thing that is seen as dissent, and the twitter and Facebook or Forums (like this) leftest cancel mob is coming for you and you will be labeled every insult in the book to silence you. It does not matter if you have a lifetime of leftist activism. Instantly everything you have said in the past will be scrutinized to be used against you in the most dishonest of ways.

I am not talking about the Right (as uke thinks I should) as I think we all acknowledge and agree that they are deplorable and target the weak with the worst tactics (gov't).

But there is a denialism on the left as to how deplorable they also are. that is not an equivalency statement but still I expect 'whatabout's' to follow. 'How dare you say that about the left when the right is worse....'


In my view one of the worst things you can do, outside using the weight of law to punish those you disagree with, is using lies and slander to ruin someone's reputation.

it does not take many accusations of 'pedophile' or 'racist', etc, to make people choose just to associate with others rather than you. Even if it shown the accusation had zero merit and was a proven liar, you probably are not getting to watch the neighbours kids, even if they agree the accusation was almost certainly meritless as they think 'still, lets leave the kids with someone else'.

That is the danger of smears. They are rarely fully undone.

That is the main weapon of the activist left. They love smears and lies and use them shamelessly against any all dissent. You differ in your view on a Race issue, you are a Nazi, conservatize, GOP, racist. Good luck unburying yourself from that when a hundred other people repeat it.

I think it comes out of a frustration that 'winning' any argument on the internet can be near impossible. If someone is intent to hold to the fact that "jan 6th was a peaceful protest' it can be impossible to end that debate with them agreeing with you (winning). Some here object to that word (winning) being used but when you want and ask and demand the person agree with your point you are asking they acknowledge it was a winning point. But due to 'alternative facts' most will never agree.

So instead just seeing anyone who disagrees as a deplorable who deserves to be ruined, even if with lies, becomes the default.

Good Lord.

I am not speaking to the top levels. All politicians on both sides are prolific liars and yes Trump and co were particular egregious. BUt I can cite endless Dem leader lies too. Lying in politics is truly the last non partisan thing.

I am speaking more to the average citizen who we would identify on the extreme left or the right.

if anyone disagrees with a hot take left topic gaining chat momentum and that person has social media the 1st tactic will be for their entire history to be combed and any thing and everything that can be found and classified as 'racist', 'nazi', 'sexist', etc, etc, will be done, even if it has to be stripped of all context and completely misrepresented. Not a person on the left would even blink as they saw others on their 'side' doing it. Crib the statement so it loses context and present it as an indictment when the full statement would tell another story. That is absolutely not only fair game, but Step 1.

I cannot even see you as an honest broker in this discussion if you do not see that. You are blinded then by 'sides; as the first thing anyone tends to do when they know they have triggered the left mob, and should do is to close all their social media and delete everything they have that they can, that they have ever said, as the know the mob is coming for them.

Matt Damon, who seems like someone who is quite lefty and activist in his life has uttered the 'wrong' words a few times and found himself in the sights of that ire.

Sarah Silverman, too must be cancelled.

I expect the reply to this, from some to be 'oh we are too feel sorry for rich celebrities now', but as always that misses the point of the fervor of the mob and how empowered they feel, that they know thru volume and slander they can take down otherwise relatively powerful people (Al Franken, etc) because the tactic works that well.

The tactic is not 'truth'. it IS volume. And lies are key to that volume as they know it is harder to not address a lie, because then many will assume it must be true.

And as many have noted, if you are forced to begin every sentence with "I am not a racist... I am not a sexist... I am not a nazi..." you have probably already lost that discussion. Thus why the activist left loves using that list as often a tool of first resort.

The way we communicate and the way we receive information is the gasoline for modern intolerance on the right and the left. We have been taught (especially the younger among us) that (i) it is important to have and maintain an on-line identity; and (ii) we should measure our self-worth based on how interested people are in our on-line identities.

"Pay attention to me" is the battle cry of the age. One cheap way to get attention to you is to spam hot takes on divisive issues. Another way to get attention is to punch endlessly, both up and down.

Like most generalizations, this one is hopelessly overbroad. But it is an accurate enough description of enough people to be very noticeable.

Part of the problem is that you are overselling the effectiveness of what you are criticizing. Matt Damon hasn't been cancelled. Sarah Silverman hasn't been cancelled. Unless I missed something, Matt Damon remains one of the most bankable and in-demand people in Hollywood. That said, he should quit doing those cringy crypto.com ads. My God are those terrible.

Good to see someone is looking out for tremendously wealthy celebrities.

I was hoping for some more small-time outdated examples right off the stiff red cuff.