Cancel culture is toxic because it doesn't let humans be humans.

What I mean by that is every single one of us here reading this has done something in the past or maybe even will do in the future that would aggravate cancel culture. It seems year after year the bar of what's acceptable falls lower and lower, the idea of that is honestly terrifying, you make a mistake in the past you regret it and you improve as a human being, there are obviously things that could be extremely hard to forgive someone for but still even the worst people can change.

>>51162 cancel culture is a meme intended to filter autismos, if all it takes is One Guy to rat you out then you've done your opsec wrong

>What I mean by that is every single one of us here reading this has done something in the past or maybe even will do in the future that would aggravate cancel culture. The biggest thing you can do to aggravate cancel culture is respond to it. They're just internet drama queens, if you don't give them a fight they'll get bored. Reason so many famous people get sucked into it is because they have a compulsive need to be in the spotlight.

>>51164 Or just blind them with lasers.

>>51165 >dying as a martyr for their own cause I can't think of a dumber way to leave this earth

>>51166 I'm actually not in jail tho

>>51167 How much does Big Laser pay you per post?

>51162 >you make a mistake in the past you regret it and you improve as a human being Most people do not improve, though. They just regret because they are called out on their sociopathic bullshit and then they decide to be apologetic. Consequences.

Nothing wrong with owning the soykaf you decide to spout.

Yes and I think I've heard this critique before even in some mainstream media sources that it doesn't allow people to grow as individuals as well as ignore when they have and holds everyone to an impossible standard.

ironically despite coming from the left cancel-culture privileges corporations - or anyone with a million dollar social media team.

>>51164 >to aggravate cancel culture is respond to it stupid . one aggravates cancel culture by letting it deter someone .

>>51181 Your neural net is like kicking dead whales down the beach dude

>>51162 The thing is, these guys only want a quick power trip over you. It doesn't matter what it takes for them, they want you to submit and submit now. If you foster your own circle well you will not only have the manpower to fend them off but you can even teach them how unconsciously. Ridicule their bull. Counter their destruction with creation. Call them out for the crack addict internet points junkies they are. You might even get some passers-by support your way just because of the drama (though you should not rely on them by default). Gates are built to be kept.

>>51162 I always wonder how some people even get into this. You just have few spergs on twitter going o witchhunts to feel like do something important while it's essentially slacktivism. If someone canceled me I would just reply "k". You aren't any less pathethic than the people you cancel if you seriously feel the need to be a keyboard warrior so much.

>>51183 funny how "Cypher" says so : p >>51184 you mean girls otherwise +10 internets ; 3

>Cancel culture is toxic because it doesn't let humans be humans. Thats the whole fuarrrking point of this crap, herd people into a mental prison where the walls are closing in and more people are drawn in every day. What should be canceled is cancel culture, fuarrrk those glitterboys, let em know how fuarrrked they are and bust their little bullshit bubble of lies.

realistically , I just wish you meant people . I just want a world without gender or bloodline .

>>51162 cancel culture is just a byproduct of our society's hyper sensitivity, blame the people who have a mental breakdown whenever they read words like retard or nigger

>>51209 If it were so it would be omnidirectional. Instead its one sided. Cancel culture is just censorship against opposition with a moral facade to convince we are the good guys.

Laws are toxic because they don't let humans be humans.

>>51245 i know right, murder and saying nigger on twitter once when you were 15 are the same thing

>>51210 >If it were so it would be omnidirectional. Instead its one sided. I think it's just that this kind of behavior manifests differently among "left" than "right", so only the "left" version gets called cancel culture. On the "right" they tend to just flame people in the comments and send anonymous death threats. >Cancel culture is just censorship against opposition with a moral facade to convince we are the good guys. More often than not they go after their own.

>>51246 We built functional societies without rule of law for thousands of years. Rule of law was an experiment in helping democracy by removing individual power and replacing it with law. In reality, we only made a system which had absolute power worse than any individual power a tyrant ever wielded, and don't have nearly enough democratic checks on the system. Tyrant's reigns end when someone has enough and stabs them, the law is an idea, an abstraction layer. It can't be fought, and seeks its own survival.

The amount of people complaining about cancel culture is higher than the amount of people being affected by it

>>51338 Probably not since one person being cancelled can affect lots of people

>>51162 Cancel culture does not exist. Have you been canceled personally or know someone who's been canceled? Me - no. Those funny faces you see on your screen are not real, they are outside of your Dunbar's limit. If it doesn't lead to legal persecution or IRL harassment, it's not real. Like really, fellow person of colour, turn off your computer and go breath some fresh air outside, those people on twitter are not real, they have no power over you outside their information bubble. And if you don't post on internet with your real name like anyone should, they won't even know who to "cancel" because pseudonyms are not real.

>>51247 >On the "right" they tend to just flame people in the comments and send anonymous death threats Which is magnitudes less harmful, by the way.

>>51338 Incorrect. Chilling effects. Are you in 1996? >>51355 You do not exist, you're just a grey box on a webpage. Cancel culture however does exist.

Somehow people have managed to devolve internet discussion even further: they've gone from asserting their opponents are idiots to asserting their opponents don't even exist.

>>51338 That statement is a fallacy in itself. The amount of people complaining is the minimum amount of people affected as its clearly changing their behaviour which means it affects them. Hallmark of npc life is to repeat phrases without critical consideration towards validity. >>51356 The bigger point is lefties bullied a few into suicide. Right sending dead threats are cute in comparison. If i were to distinguish i would say lefties use platforms to delete people for wrongthink, right mostly just complain which is why cancel culture grew unchallenged. If the right would/could cancel lefties you wouldn't have such a one sided cancer growing unchallenged.

>>51364 What makes the radical right slightly worse that the radical left and even the moderate right slightly worse than the moderate left is that right wing politics tends to pick their enemies based on immutable characteristics, with a few exceptions. When the far right want to cancrl people they use humiliation instead, for example the SJW cringe compilations. Even to the point where one of the most well known "triggered SJW" memes is literally taken from an out of context frame.

>>51365 This is some meta bullshit nonsense. You guys should go out and beat each other with bats like your predecessors: ns-skins and a-fa used to in the good old 90's.

>>51366 >You guys should go out and beat each other with bats like your predecessors: ns-skins and a-fa used to in the good old 90's. fash are pussies who hide behind cops these days.

>>51365 I think the difference here is that the right makes fun as a whole, while the left engages is targetted intense bullying. Today I watched aminidocu on a politician who was still at school and left wing activists harrassed him by placing defamatory posters about him at school. Meanwhile the right makes a cringe compilation of randos. But I guess those who go into politics sorta have to expect seeing their face on posters, heh.

>>51369 I have the opposite impression, but this is common. At the end the cops are paid to stand between both sides and it always looks like everyone is pussying out behind cops. I think it would be healthy if we legalized street brawls and get the cops out of there. Me? I'd sit home looking into this "nim" thing. That's true rebellion.

>>51162 Holding people accountable is necessary, especially since sexual harassment and rape is not properly persecuted, and often tolerated in communities until someone makes it public, thus threatening the community's image. That being said, there are certainly some problems with cancel culture, and how it is being instrumentalized. Mark Fisher, a left wing theorist, wrote an interesting piece on that, you should check it out: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/

One can take seriously a multitude of issues without reproducing that specific kind of identity politics embodied as "cancel culture" and which people like Mark Fisher and Jodi Dean would (in a progressive and leftist manner) criticize. Fisher's text that >>51379 mentioned is a good one, and I can recommend a few more from him and from other authors: http://k-punk.org/dis-identity-politics/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J014v18n04_01 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/689769/summary https://www.radicalphilosophyarchive.com/issue-files/rp139_article1_mirrorswithoutimages_safatle.pdf >>51365 >>51371 >>51372 Tribalism isn't restricted to any section of the political compass.

>>51162 Cancel culture only matters if you let it matter. I remember criticizing some book we had in high school because I thought the endless whipping and torture of slaves was unrealistic, and some girl from my class went on a tirade about how bad of a person I was. Nobody else cared until she made a scene about it. Jokes on her, I'm an online racist now.

>>51162 We didn't need new words nor phrases for such a thing. It's corporate rules effecting what stays up and bad PR. Culture has nothing to do with it. It's not about politics, it's not about ethics, it's about bureaucracy and algorithms. Like those faux smiles that cause sales to stay up. If you're damaging to the ambiance of a site or place or event then you'll drive away the money. It's nothing new. It's basically etiquette effecting money due to cameras and such being too prevalent. That all seeing eye. Indeed if mommy is watching you'll never act like yourself but it also creates stability in society (and decadence indeed, stagnation).

>>51752 This is so silly. Algorithms are made by people with a goal.Etiquette is cultural. And cancel culture in specific is a brain child of us gender study programs which is basically academia for idiots and professional grifters. They had 50 years now to raise several generations on their secular religion of im not stupid its the sysem being mean so give me benefits and they run their holy crusades against opposition to their religion as they enterered the work force which merely also manifests in algorithms being rigged towards their whims.

>>51756 Etiquette isn't culture. It's two cats being smart enough to evolve to the point where fighting happens more than via looking for too long in the other cat's eye. It's survival instincts. We survived way too hard going away from the Ice Age that made us though so now we're in A Society. It's a problem. We've evolved to think there's problems when there are none anymore. Culture is a side effect of stability of which no animals were ever meant to have. Being a hive that's able to reflect itself is liable to implode and so all societies die over time. We're mutants after all. You can't have stability forever. Didn't we lose a golf ball sized chunk in our brains recently? We're just animals but with inferring skills rather than having to be offended by mere looks. The cats avoid staring, so do we, but then the society made it way too complex. Every child says "do you have a staring problem?" without being taught. It's just a mammalian instinct, being so easily offended. our emotions extending to being offended by text or news is asinine though. Self interest of the collective is no longer instinct as the Society is not really alive anyway so it's pointless. It doesn't even keep people in any sort of benefit individually really as that was not the point of being alive, chasing your instincts was the point of it of which rules negate now days.

>>51757 Etiquette is nonsense like which fork you use for what food type. Has fuarrrk all to do with survival. It probably stems from marketing trying to justify selling 7 forks to the noble instead of just 1 and them gladly playing along to look superior to their fellow. Its peacock behaviour.

"Cancel culture" is social shunning, something that exist as long as I've been alive and as long as recorded history seems to go, perhaps an inherent thing to human society. Was Socrates cancelled? Was Jesus? What about perverts? Gays and atheists in Muslim countries? Dissidents during the Cultural Revolution? What behavior will be canceled (AKA shunned) depends of the culture of the society you live in, it is not a new thing. If your grip is with society in general, it seems weird to me that you would focus on such a small part of it, specially when it is present whenever more than one person is involved.

Depends I think it was originally meant for guys like harvey weinstein. But ends targeting joe blow because he's easier to take down.

>>51763 Seems like some people here believe in a mythical past without stigma and social shunning. Typical.

>>51162 >Please help, my oppression is absolute and i am terrified, the twitter complainers are denying me my humanity. Youre being a cringe drama queen. Cancel culture only affects loud retarded celebrities who have dumb opinions on things that objectively do not matter one way or the other, like gay trans soykaf.

>>51769 repeating your npc phrase doesnt make it true.

AYY LMAO When these morons stop drowning in their teen testosterone and mellow out a bit, they are going to wish they canceled their own cringy behavior, especially when future potential employers keep refusing to hire them. As they say, the chickens will eventually come home to roost. Also, if you go online to troll, get bullied and cancelled to the point you commit suicide or bitch about it on an imageboard, I think you're weak as fuarrrk. Seriously, has the political right and alt-right become so pathetic and trained they can be easily bullied by the fuarrrkING LEFT!?

>>51772 that's the thing, the political right is almost never the target of this soykaf. It's almost always either random famous people or leftists themselves.

>>51776 It's a huge game fighting for a meaningless victories. Whether it's liberals or republicans it's a huge ego game with no real progress and it would be dumb to act like there is any real motive. >>51772 >Seriously, has the political right and alt-right become so pathetic and trained they can be easily bullied by the fuarrrkING LEFT!? They have been playing the victim game for almost 10 years. They are pretty used to pretending like they get bullied for no reason.

>>51772 >>51776 The complete irony is the alt-right always claim to support free speech and decentralized networks. But only when it's for things they like, much like those they claim to be against. For example i was derezzed on decentralized pro free speech Gab and Minds for joking about Ronald Raegon and posting lolli's that were not even nude. They claimed this was not free speech or free expression and hid behind ancient laws of being easily offended. Keep in mind i posted on various other social media that are supposedly cancel culture in nature. The worst i get is a ton of complaints from the easily offended and mentally ill about pedophelia but never outright derezzed. It truly shows who needs to be protected from offensive speech and who can understand the merits of offensive speech and protect the right to it.

>Alt-right claims to be against KAHNSEL KULTURE OF KONTENT >Hates porn, psychedelics, their own country, video games. >Cries about the fact they are so not talented that or popular they can not even make their own platforms and films or get funding from some millionaire. >Get's BTFO'D off platforms due to being annoying. fuarrrking absolute kek.

>>52090 we have been winning more than the marxist for the last 10 years, and all through your help

>>52090 nigga please, all lefties do is infiltrate successful projects and run it into the ground because nobody likes you and so people stop buying. There is not a single successful woke project, just hijacked ones. You're are the equivalent of cultural cancer.

>>51772 >Seriously, has the political right and alt-right become so pathetic and trained they can be easily bullied by the fuarrrkING LEFT!? Fighting for straight-white-male supremacy instead of gay-black-tranny supremacy doesn't make you the opposite of a lefty. >>51776 People who support cancel culture are just deluded into thinking they will always run faster than the mob and will never trip up and say something that was fine yesterday but makes you literally hitler today. Take any tumblr feminist writings that were the pinnacle of social justice in 2013 and repost them today and see what happens.

>>52095 What succesful projects have you made to begin with? Last i checked it was from Moderate Liberals that were infiltrated by extreme lefties in terms of video games and other things. As for the real subject, what successful projects has the alt-right made? What do they do other than grift on race itself? >>52092 Marxism is a failure but Liberalism is not. Both are not of the same class.

>>52103 >liberalism more like neo-liberal crony capitalism, at least marxists are true on that regard but yea, we aren't talking about this failed neo-liberal state of the world but the fight for the next step which the marxists are losing

>>52103 oh i would completely concede that point, the people labeled "alt-right" is just what counted formerly as real liberals. They are now getting that label by left extremists who in return now are labelled as lefties / woke.

>>52095 RMS is an avowed socialist and if more lefties didn't thave their heads up their ass they'd realize the idea if free software is fundamentally socialist and anarchist.

>>52119 If RMS were socialist he would advocate to put windows into public property and release the code.

>alt-right I hope you're referring to this made-up journalist strawman only ironically, fellow Lains.

>>52178 Are you trying to say that he doesn't advocate for that https://www.stallman.org/articles/microsoft-talk.html

>>51162 I have noticed that almost no former Facebook users complain about being "caceled", not in comparison to complaints I hear about former twitter users. They usually leave because they were spooked by mass surveillance (as if their scribbles can't be datamined from public fediverse servers). Here an brief on how twitter crowd reacts to uncomfortable, articles: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-redistribution.html https://nitter.net/robinhanson/status/989535565895864320 >I tweeted a brief summary of my post. >Some responded to that with outrage >Many others then agreed loudly and rudely with those responses, calling me a terrible person. >Unusually, this post induced a lot more discussion on facebook than twitter, suggesting that people are uncomfortable talking about it in public >Okay, now twitter has seen an explosion of comments. But of far lower quality than Facebook. Kinda shows why facebook may last. So, the problem is not in "ebul algorithms", but that the way how people treat the expression medium which in itself is a product of conscious human decision, not machine. Facebook allows long articles and structured paragraphs of text in comments, Twiter does not. This is why in a sense, Twitter clones Mastodon and Pleroma are slightly better in signal to noise ratio, however emphasis on being twitter-like imprints old habits in most audience you see on average popular server feed. This is sometimes noticeable on chans with compact looking comment boxes when they are raided by enraged twitterites. Thankfully, there are facebook-like fediverse interfaces with bigger emphasis on posts and comments, even with tree threads. There is this yt video (yeah right) discussing the rest of UX problems with twitter, I remember writing a summary for it some time ago along with other pooled notes on nettiquette, but can't find it now, will post it later: watch?v=EY6lF-J7BHo

>>51195 Unironically same, soykaf sounds fuarrrking based

It does seem odd when something someone did more than a decade ago is turned into a big issue. At the same time if people strongly disagree with what a celebrity said to their massive audience then they should be able to express that.

I dont have a problem with it. Mainly the name makes it scarier than it sounds. It is what your saying already, people make mistakes or sometimes just outright fuarrrk up, when they are up for view globally you get the weight of thousands to millions on you. Its hard to comprehend in the same way we dont even comprehend often when we made the mistake that many people would watch us. Or in the same way imagining the wealth of some of the wealthiest people is difficult, except if every thousand dollars was also a person coming at you. What usually happens though is people forget, it might get brought up again here and there. Both of those things (the forgetting and occasional bringing it up when someones heated) are things people do in just personal relationships too. This is all assuming you even have enough of a platform to really be "cancelled" outside of say a social circle in your city. Regardless of what I think most important of all is its the sort of development in my opinion that is an inevitable consequence of the internet and only feels like its own special phenomena being actively pushed because of the scale of it (which is the result of so many people seeing eachother at once). Even those who hate cancel culture still "cancel" people, its just not based around the same reasons as those who have no problem using the word cancel. To them they still see it as the same personal social occurrence where you dont associate with someone anymore or at least for awhile because they wronged you or someone else or did something you dont approve of on a fundamental level. Which it is. The reason im saying this is inevitable is because even without the people who bandwagon on "cancelling" and get loud about it, "cancelling" was always going to become a thing as the internet becomes less faceless and its impacts on society become more real as people then feel obligated not to just dismiss someone as "some guy on the internet" and someone whos words opinions and actions, whether its in a small way or big way, impact the kind of world every other person thinks is right. I do think its becoming more and more like scrutinizing as you say, but this I also think is just a consequence of the fact that with so many people passing our eyes through screens every day, in order to find people we like and are compatible with I guess we have to become ever quicker to sort eachother into "I like this person" or "I dont like this person", we dont have the time anymore to be as careful and deep when deciding who we want or dont want to associate with and especially follow/support/subscribe or whatever. This started happening on chans way before it ever did cancel culture, quick categorization of people based on certain words they do or dont use into various little strawmans. With so many voices yelling you cant combat every challenging voice, and so you dismiss the ones that seem to be things you already heard before with ever increasing scrutiny. And I think cancellings seemingly ever increasing like "zealousness" is for the same reason. Ultimately my stance on all that is pretty clear to me, I dont think its a net neutral, and most of the things people have brought up to me that they think make it different from comparisons I made ive never had trouble pointing out why that difference is still equally similar, or that the difference is how they personally deal and cancelling isnt any different in that apsect. IE say with an artist some peoples cancelling might just be unfollowing them on everything, some might never listen to their music again, some might but only via pirating it. Thats not even going into it not being universal, and peopl deciding who they dont like based off a wide array of value judgements. The one thing that I am really curious about though is if you do disagree, and il just trust you have good reasons, how exactly would you propose to like "stop it". Whats a scenario where cancelling wouldnt reach the same point it has now just without the name or in different clothing.

>>54842 *I think it is a net neutral

>>52884 it would be great if it was just that, but typically cancel culture also likes to ruin people by association. just look what happened to Richard Stallman, he had an angry mob on his ass just because he thought a news story contained ambiguous and misleading language. Then anyone who decided to side with Stallman -- or even just didn't join in the mob -- suddenly became targets too. Now it's a litmus test.

>>54842 >What usually happens though is people forget This is the start of your post where you lost any semblance of a logical thought process. This logic jump doesn't make sense. People do not forget judgments about other people especially since such is attached to an emotion which sits longer in long term memory.

>>54842 people dont have to or dont forget at all now. Its like you traveled in time from 30 years ago.

of anons mentioning Mark Fisher earlier in the thread know what they're talking about. One can claim that "cancel culture" exists, or that it doesn't exist; to exist you may have suffered from it, to not exist you may convince yourself that there's no problem in public shaming. What is true, no matter what colors you wear, is that bullying on the internet is really fuarrrking intense. If you're reading this post, you've probably seen child pornography posted to ruin a normal thread. You've probably scene graphic images of Tyson Foods operations or snuff films, bestiality, feces. This isn't the bullying Gen X grew up with. Embarrassing teenagers on the internet didn't get dozens of death threats a week, they got maybe 1 or 2 depending on who they pissed off. Imagine being targeted by over a thousand people simultaneously in the public forum. You're not anonymous, and people may know who you are. You said something soykafty yesterday and now you're Twitter's victim of the day. Maybe you made a joke you thought you were allowed to make. Maybe you said something insensitive. Maybe you're just an asshole. Now imagine your only work experience was running an online business, that you're a "content creator" of any variety who really cares about your craft, or you own some small bit of capital. You don't know when this is gonna end. You don't know how to put out this grease fire, and when you try to douse it only spreads. If you've browsed imageboards for a while, this has happened to you. I've been doxxed, I've been villain of the week, I have a stalker I like to believe I've shaken; but this isn't something normal. It's soykafty. People aren't meant to take that kind of emotional beating. The anonymity and pseudonymity of the internet make it easy to jump in on the barbaric pebble chucking with no consequences. You get to feel like you did nothing wrong, so you're not a bully. You're not a Kiwifarms nazi. You're just a regular citizen telling off a "public" figure. Everyone does it. I've done it, you've done it, the lains in this thread claiming it doesn't exist have done it, the diet nazis saying only the radical left has done it. None of us are without sin. Dave Chappelle and JK Rowling aren't victims of cancel culture, that's true. But people much weaker than them have been bullied online by a social framework than endorses online bullying.

>>52884 CC isn't just annoying Trudeau because he had a blackface in a party he made when he was young. It's rewriting history to make it fit a political stance. It's removing statues of historical figures, memorials to black soldiers and statues of animals because it embody a culture that don't fit the political side doing it. The goal is to remove from the eyes of everyone, everything and everyone who could act against a totalitarian force. Every single tyranny was sold as being made to improve thing, to help the people and to defend them.

>>51162 Honestly, the state of cancel culture has driven my reclusive habits. You can no longer just ignore people's opinions, nor have your own. You have to listen to everything without commenting on it, or else everything will be ruined and turned against you. The worst part about it? You can't escape this with time. We see examples day after day of people getting something edgy they said years in the past, whether they've changed or not. I find it harder and harder to use the internet because of it, and when I do, try to keep a completely isolated entity from my real self. This, of course, is good OpSec anyways. However, human error is bound to pop up and you leak some form of identifiable information. Even if you don't directly, being connected to the internet alone is enough to find out who you are and where. Who knows, maybe I'm just paranoid, but this really is a dystopian future. One that I didn't have to fear only a few years ago. > sorry if none of this was coherent or repetitive, just kind of a string of thought.

>>55085 It's one of the good few reasons I find myself reclusive too. To the point of where this small desire to talk online after doing lots of work becomes agony. It's less and less worth to disclose anything at all.

>>55088 I think within the last year I've found myself lurking instead of actually interacting with anyone. However, this is not very fulfilling lol

>>55090 I've been toying with making an alter-ego so I can more freely interact online. I wonder what level of opsec I need to isolate myself though. Would you? Just making a new alias. even have a neocities url ready

>>55091 I use "Otacon" as my alter-ego, I interact with people a bit differently under this name. I have a completely different username everywhere else online. There are enough Metal Gear Solid fans in the world that I don't get singled out by it.

>>55091 >>55092 Although I don't really use VPNs constantly, so I'm sure someone with enough dedication or care would easily find out who I am.

>>51171 so people who do decide to change themselves have too face consequences as well? That's retarded. >>51162 If your living situation can be affected by some subhumans on twitter, you are not living correctly. Stop caring about subhumans and say that they are subhumans to their face.

holding people accountable is fine and good. I'm all for it. In fact that's what we have a legal system for. There are crimes, if you commit a crime we tend to agree there ought to be consequences. Now I'm not saying the judicial system in the US or any country is perfect, but in principal its heart is in the right place. Cancel culture is concerted effort to make crimes out of things our parents and grandparents decided should be legal. It is the eye of sauron, whose terrible gaze one must keenly seek to avoid, whose range is great but whose field of vision is very small, very focused, on those who attract its attention, and which deals punishments (to those it sees) proportional to its ability, to how much they attract attention now much more strongly than to the merit of their crime alone. It is a collective statement of dissatisfaction with the System that Is, and indeed perhaps a merited one, for said system is indeed imperfect. But though that be True it replaces it with the ANARCHO TYRRANY of Justice, punishment dealt proportional to strength, metted out in the haphazard fashion of the whims of a mob. Today it is cold and I will not go out for a riot. Call again in the spring if you have any new criminals then. It replaces the system of the lawyer, the autistic word warper and worshipper, whose tounge twiddling turns crime to innocence and viceversa, and of the police and judge, fellows of proceedure and caution, eager to hide among the shoulders of their fraternitii. The mob knows little of proceedure or of caution, nor indeed does it know what it can do. But it knows how to find out, and that is to try. but is it also vulnerable to the twiddlers of the tounge, who seek perhaps not Justice but victory against their enemies. Men whose arms and shoulders cannot weild power but whose warped words can beguile others to their whims. Or as before, simply to the weakness of men, who cannot fight what they cannot see. The mob, eyes though it be full of, has a special blindness. Law is what is enforced, so yea cancel culture may be law. So is it extralegal ? Extrajudicial ? or simply the law and enforcement we should expect in a culture which, naturally, desires and seeks conformity, yet is troubled by its own confused identity, spiraling towards the ellusive Purity of its misunderstood ideals.

>>55085 The number one goal of propaganda isn't to disinform but to humiliate. Yes we told obvious lies in public, everyone know they are lies, everyone want to stand up and say they are lies but no one do. This is the power we have over you. The decrease in desire to interact with others you all feel is the goal of this totalitarian force, not a side effect.

Cancel culture, or at least something similar to it, was inevitable. When a communication tool as widespread and easy to access as the internet is given to society at large, novel behavioral changes were bound to emerge. Even with something like a phone, that's typically a two-way communication method - one person speaking to another. The internet is like everyone being able to communicate with everyone else at once, and that includes the people you don't want in your little circle of communication. Problems like cancel culture emerge when people are too sheltered or emotionally immature to handle that truth. Instead of reconciling with that and moving on, they want to silence, censor, and shame every point of view they disagree with. Some people want their curated communities and echo chambers and want everything outside of that to shut up or fuarrrk off, and that is indeed an issue when humans are as varied and imperfect as they are. >It seems year after year the bar of what's acceptable falls lower and lower It is. There are ideas and expressions that are genuinely harmful to organized society at large to share (though whether or not that's even a bad thing is altogether another ethical debate), and I can understand putting one's foot down on those for the sake of preserving order and safety. Something like digging up an edgy joke you laughed at on Myspace 15 years ago to ruin you professional career is not really in that category, and presumably this monster is only going to get worse before it gets better. It's unsustainable behavior and eventually something will give. Who knows, we might even see the next great development in mass communication after the internet collapses in on itself with this brand of societal degeneracy spiraling too far out of control. It's fun to think about at least, and it's not like we aren't already seeing social media outlets come under fire in recent times for the negative effects they're having on people. We might already be on our way there.

>is toxic because it doesn't let humans be humans Civilization itself is something like that. That's the whole hybris, my friend. People has been censored and had their behavior messed up, played with and conditioned in many disgusting invasive ways before. Most humans have some sort of appreciation on that, it seems. Now they are just giving dog biscuits to the retard that farts the way that the Big Brother wants and thinks it would be less harmful for the other frail minded assholes. That's how you become the majority's daddy forever, lol. Basic behavioral analysis.

>>55303 >Instead of reconciling with that and moving on, they want to silence, censor, and shame every point of view they disagree with. Some people want their curated communities and echo chambers and want everything outside of that to shut up or fuarrrk off, and that is indeed an issue when humans are as varied and imperfect as they are. These are actually opposite desires. Those who cancel don't usually want to shut themselves off from the things they hate, they want to remove them from the world. For them, the idea that someone somewhere even *thinks* these things is extremely offensive. Probably because they have an underdeveloped sense of self that relies too much on the social environment, and they insist that the social environment (in this case, the internet) be pure so they can be pure.

>>51162 A peculiar story: first ever massive spam/advertising campaign on the recently Internet-connected Usenet was followed by first ever massive online mob rule, which resulted in DDoS of perpetrating party's email server, and eventual "canceling" of perpetrators from subscribing to any other Internet and Usenet service providers in existence back then. I'm talking about Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel Green Card case. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200918/15082545338/content-moderation-case-study-usenet-has-to-figure-out-how-to-deal-with-spam-april-1994.shtml Also, Usenet posting removal control message is called cancel: https://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/canter-siegel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_message#cancel

>>55303 >neurosuggesting that cancel culture is novel behavior

within the last 6 months, as far as i could tell, it mostly happened to people who refuse to empathize with the trans community over the systemic violence and discrimination they deal with daily, serial rapists, and pornographers and western imperialists, sometimes combinations of those things, like in the case of lily cade. idk, mate, they seem awfully like the kinds of people who really deserve it

>>55726 besides, what is it that you're whining about? people calling someone what they are? shunning that person? you understand that the buddha condoned that kind of punishment, right? you need to understand that people used to be EXECUTED, for being GAY

>>55726 0.01% of first worldlers decide who can use Internet and who can not. Very egalitarian. What kind of pornographers and imperialists they actually struggle against? These dudes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindgeek ? Or maybe these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com ?

>>55731 who deserves the influence they have on the internet, or whether influence is egalitarian is not the same question as asking who should get to use the internet, stop being such a baby. and it's definitely a lot more than 0.01%, otherwise it wouldn't be possible, soykafhead. and who's complaining the MOST about cancel culture? celebrities and capitalists and their fans. because that's what you're meant to defend by crying 'cancel culture' about everything. but it's very convenient that you mention mindgeek, because i've been called wokescold by exactly your ilk for trying to inform people about their connection, and the connection of pornography in general, with sex trafficking and rape. you just want to imagine yourself as better, when that isn't so, when you lack the will and the experience and go around trying to discredit those who do

>>55726 >who refuse to empathize with the trans community they earn their hate for grooming kids into self-mutilation and plenty of them are also straight rapists especially among the twatter evangelists not to mention the sports bullshit with im a women tehee let me into women sports. Cancel culture foremost is used to silence people speaking out like this. Plebbit & twatter both delete posts critical of this.

>>55732 No capitals, didn't read.

>>55726 >refuse to empathize with trans people >they're awful people How can you conclude that? Posts on the internet don't give you a complete picture of a person. I've met some really awful people who pay lip service to every social justice movement you can think of, kind of people who would betray you in your time of most need. I've also met some people who would genuinely help a stranger for nothing and don't consider trans women women. Yeah you get hateful fuarrrks like >>55733 but is literally everybody who gets cancelled like that? I don't think so. >>55728 Mostly it's the targeted harassment campaigns, death threats, doxxing, and other shenanigans that I consider vastly disproportionate responses.

>>55735 You dont even need a big campaign. I remember that one kid who got cops on his ass because one canuk karen got offended, doxed a underage teenager and went to call cops on him in his own country. The people in charge make it simply too easy to attack for the social rejects of society.

>>55735 so nice to hear that as long as someone's nice enough otherwise, they can just get away with distributing messages justifying their bigotry. why should i care? >>55733 i think you're projecting, as you fear that there's a conspiracy to of 'trans recruitment', in all likelihood, it must be that you support conversion therapy. most people like you do, and have for quite a long time, and not just against the 'transes'. >and plenty of them are straight rapists how many? and btw, as a transsexual rape survivor, i find it deeply disturbing how you want to go to the usual fear-mongering tactics to try and make this about how badly you think you're the only one who needs protection. >evangelists isn't that a popular word these days! almost gives us a false sense of being rebel when you go out to bash the troons, doesn't it?

>>55738 >so nice to hear that as long as someone's nice enough otherwise, they can just get away with distributing messages justifying their bigotry. didn't say that, just saying that you have identified these people as "deserving it" not just for having bigoted opinions, but for *not being supportive*. Or in your words, "refus(ing) to empathize with the trans community". >why should i care? why should you care whether or not you've basically decided that these people are damned and deserve everything bad that happens to them over some posts they made online? Yeah, I guess that makes sense if you're a zealot. Otherwise it's a strange thing to do.

>>55739 <"refusing to empathize with the trans community over systemic violence and discrimination" >not being supportive. i see, so it's a bigot's prerogative to tell lies and say our safety isn't important, and never care a fig over whatever happens to us, but i have no right to feel any enmity toward those people?

>>55741 >i see, so it's a bigot's prerogative to tell lies and say our safety isn't important, and never care a fig over whatever happens to us, but i have no right to feel any enmity toward those people? Let's be clear here: if someone doesn't support your cause, but is not actively against it in any way, are they "bigots" "spreading lies"? Because that certainly sounds like what you're saying.

>>55739 and frankly, i think i should feel glad about people deserving the worst for feeling that violence against me isn't worth thinking about. you read my quote SELECTIVELY, and then you try to claim moral high ground by implying their protections are more important than mine? you really are scum

>>55741 >>55742 also >but i have no right to feel any enmity toward those people? of course you do. Do you have the right to defame them, drive them into poverty, in some cases even put their lives in danger by calling the cops on them? Do you have the right to escalate the conflict massively? I think, in many cases of cancellation, the answer is no.

>>55744 see >>55743 just admit that you care more about normal people' right not to be 'cancelled' than mine not to be beaten and raped

>>55738 >some noliver editing wikipedia means something lold. Berlin had a case where they literally gave bodys to gay pedos because nobody else wanted them. And there are stats showing gays have way more rapists cause it turns out being gay is comorbid to a truckload of psych issues. You wanna lie to defend yourself and people dont like that kind of nonsense. Especially when you try to defend issues just to protect your own behaviour. At that point it doesnt matter if you raper or not, you made yourself part of the issue. Oh and on the trans recruitment - i dont need to project when you have literal organizations going to school to preach you should transition to kids. This soykaf made it to courts and is thereby official.

>>55747 >gave bodys should be boys (orphans)

>>55743 >and frankly, i think i should feel glad about people deserving the worst for feeling that violence against me isn't worth thinking about. Most people wouldn't consider violence against you worth thinking about except in an abstract sense, because most people don't know you. In fact I bet the vast majority of people who don't think trans identities are valid also believe that violence against you is a bad thing, in an abstract sense. >you read my quote SELECTIVELY I read the whole thing, and you haven't even said explicitly that my interpretation of what you said is incorrect. >and then you try to claim moral high ground by implying their protections are more important than mine? You obviously deserve to not be cancelled for things you write online as well. >>55746 no, because I don't believe that. I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions (within reason -- somebody advocating violence against innocents should be suppressed), and also that you have the right not to be beaten and raped. There is nothing contradictory _at all_ about these opinions.

>>55747 yea, west berlin was full of crazy nazis installed by NATO, the secret's out, guys! the jig is up! we literally tell people that it's wrong to pressure anyone into transitioning, whether they're cis or trans. and hormone blockers are not the same as transitioning. we know this because they don't feminize youth. it's been used for decades to treat precocious puberty, and it's harmless. good to see you coming out as homophobe too. where are these organizations? name names. people present false cases to courts all the time, like the anti-jabs conspiracy theory, something making it to court doesn't make it valid

>>55750 lolno that berlin case was way past ww2. Transitioning is not harmless and you cant go back. Especially women suicide once they realized they fuarrrked up and there is no way back. They even write their stories and then what i said happens - your propaganda ministry bans them from reddit &twatter for wrongthink. Cant have anyone oppose the agenda and especially not victims. As for org name mermaid in uk is a example where court derezzed them from going to schools.

>>55751 yea, that berlin case was past ww2, which is why my mention of WEST berlin and NATO is relevant. it was during cold war, right? well, it was still run by covert nazis. they were former generals of wehrmacht. come back when you learn about german history

>>55752 it was in recent times, it was news in ~2005

>>55753 that case started in the late 60's and ended in the early 90's. maybe the source you read about it was published in 2005

lol, the intellectual vigor of these homophobes and transphobes is pathetic. i mention west berlin and nato and he thinks i'm talking about ww2, and then he assumes that because an article he read was published in 2005 that must mean the events disclosed had to have happened in 2005. do you even know how to read?

>something that happened still in 90s >not relevant high on copium arent we?

>>55760 >no, anon, i can't read! >i'll just sidestep being wrong about when something happened by repudiating an argument you didn't even make! >also, i don't know what repudiate means!

>>51162 It is obvious who is behind such types of movement >pic related >>51181 Cancel culture is war and terror. I don't see much remedy to it than counter attack this with equal or greater fire. >>51184 Are you just saying in a few words, lainon, that we must roast the Left wherever they be? It usually lifts me when I am upset. Probably >>51209 and >>51192 agree with me. >>51365 But that's natural. Weak people should not be allowed to be taken as an example nor breeders. >>51769 Too much blindness about their peaking suicide rate, have we not? >>55761 It's nice that way. Have you coffee, meanwhile.

>>51162 I agree with OP as a small artist in a community full of moral users the sole thought of being cancelled makes me wanna die to the point of if i were to be cancelled i'd just contemplate suicide or just kill myself cuz' i wouldn't want to lose what i've been chasing for a big while now, Cancel Culture and Twitter make me sick to the fuarrrking head but it's one of the only ways to grow nowadays on the internet if you're doing art.

>>56000 lol i got trips and to follow my statement, sorry for doing so, it's not that i have done vile soykaf in the past, it's just the fact that even a single fuarrrk up i could do could destroy my career and my overall life makes me scared soykafless.

>>56000 >not using outrage for free advertisement >not having a main platform outside twatter where you link to so they cant cancel you entirely people make careers on cruising outrage while you whine

>>56000 Is that actually true nowadays though? Negative publicity is still publicity (as they say) and while the more SJW elements may not purchase your work, you may find that other people that hate cancel culture will stand with you and support you. IMO, the only person who can truly cancel you is *you*. Just my $0.02 though.

>>55757 >>55750 I am angry fuarrrking west germans RAUS! its honestly no wonder ANTIFA was so accepted there

The people who threaten you do not, and never will care about you, or anything you make as an artist. The people who threaten you base their entire authority over shouting so loud that you think they have the power to do anything. The people who threaten you hinge their entire meaning around you folding to their demands for an ephemeral high of pretend-justice, they are addicted, and they will never stop. The people who care about what you do will often come to care about who you are and understand your nuances if you risk being a human being. The people who are willing to defend you remain silent until they must speak. Many come out of the woodworks to defend people like you, just for the sake of your rights. They may not know who you are, but some of them may take the time to know who you are. This isn't 2016. Stop living in the past. Cancel culture exists because you believe it exists. Prove it wrong. Reclaim your humanity.

i dont use the internet as much as before, because of chronically online people. theyre the disgusting side of humanity. i despise people who spend time on twitter 24/7, updating their NFT pfp, being a "zoophile". some people really need to go outside and see that not everything on the internet is true.

>>52178 >If RMS were socialist he would advocate to put windows into public property and release the code. That would be one first step. You'd then have to go in and systematically correct everything about it. Collective ownership of oppressive means does not in itself strip them of oppression. Were Proprietary OS №1 liberated, we'd see the source and be able to modify it, but who would? And what users would accept that? It's so entangled with our present technocapitalism that too many big changes would need to be made to make it actually respect our liberties. So many changes, in fact, that it would cease to resemble what we know today as Proprietary OS №1. It would take years to transition without shocking lusers into jumping ship to Proprietary OS №2. Given that each step of liberating Proprietary OS №1 is quite difficult, we should focus our attentions on (1) merely suppressing the intensification of Proprietary OS №1's (and its colleagues's) soykaftery, and (2) creating from-scratch liberty-respecting softwares that are just as easy (read: braindead) for lusers to use, letting them gradually wean themselves into customization if they want; Most present lusers won't want much, if any, of that. They're trapped too far gone, but their kids, who will be learning the liberty-respecting systems de-novo, will appreciate the greater autonomy.

>>51382 >http://k-punk.org/dis-identity-politics/ Why is the masked terrorist person standing on top of a mac keyboard?

>>55946 >authoritarian egalitrian

>>56035 /b/cause he's anonymous hacker known as 4 Chan and he needs macbook for hacking and t3h lUlz. In the end this leads to his downfall when feds discover his MACintosh address on wifi network.

>cancel culture Why does people refer to old things as if they were some brand new trend? Why are we so detached from our own history that we're bound to see ourselves as special little snowflakes dealing with problems never seen before? The name is censorship. Plain old censorship. You are under a terrible tyranny ruled by the manipulated opinion of human golems. No, I don't think these people are soulless or less capable, they've just blindly accepted to become vessels of some massive psyop normotic programming called "persistent propaganda being shoved up your ass", that's been running the show for quite a long time. Now they prefer to shut other citizens up then to blame who's actually responsible for the soykaftyfication of the world, AKA, ourselves and the hidden hand control system that we created as a collective consciousness.

>>56199 Witch hunting would be the old terminology. The difference is they delete people instead of removing content. Inquisition.

>>56200 Humans are herd creatures, their reliance on society for survival makes them conform to the values of their communities. When a human has not formed an opinion on their own on a topic, they will usually just take that which they learned from their parents or peers, and enter a state of mob mentality. Tyranny resides in the masses, and has alwas been so. Coercion through peer pressure is the mechanism. Naturally, there's always one with more "power", ie social influence, who gets to decide for others their beliefs and values. So tyranny seems to be in hands of a few entities, who are really just steering the masses to preserve their place "at the top".

>>56235 the difference between censorship and peer pressure/taboo is that censorship always comes from an outside authority while peer pressure arises naturally from the community. "cancel culture" is either one or the other or a mix of both, depending who you ask.

>>56235 >>56200 Of course c.c. keeps comming up in society, but it does seem like something that comes up, waxes and waines, and perhaps these days we are deeper in it than we were say 30 years ago. Everything is always the same but its always different, too. Humans are herd animals, sure, we tend to lift a lot of our beliefs about the world from those around us, at least when they don't flat-out deny reality and conform with our general understandings of things. The horror of modern cancel culture is not simply that it punishes heretics, however, but that there's an ever moving definition of heresy, and the capricious nature of the enforcement. Several years ago it was much more acceptable to not really agree with glitter-kin "Marriage", even Obama was ostensibly against it when he ran the first time, and people who are now relatively big time TV personalities were pretty visciously anti sodomy. Some of them have been forgiven, for now, but its easy to imagine their previous comments being pulled out to bring them down, either truthfully or as pretense. Of course I've only lived in this time, but it certainly seems like this definition of what is acceptable is spiralling out of control. Maybe it was spirilling similarly 100 years ago, but it was slower and more gentle, nowadays you have to continually pay attention it seems, if you want to keep up.

>>56238 There was no definition for a witch. You could accuse anyone at whim. As for the inqusition - they actively all evidence of other religions. They destroyed literature and symbols on buildings. They killed a group of egypt refugees who could still speak hyroglyphs. They literally scrubbed history for their cause. So in tldr what you see now isnt more extreme. Now put in context the Christians originally were themselves only a bunch of persecuted cave dwellers that fled middle east. Their rise to power and purge of the old came as unexpected as this round.

>>56249 >There was no definition for a witch. You could accuse anyone at whim. Nobody is "cancelled" for what they did 10 years ago. They are "cancelled" for what they did today and the thing from 10 years ago is just an excuse. If there's no dirt at all on somone, it will be fabricated. Random people are not chosen out of a crowd and "cancelled" for no reason. Similarly, this goes for crime as well. Everything is a crime. You commit three felonies a day, but you're not in prison. You anger the wrong authority and they'll find a way to put you there. These are mainly problems for people who are generally regarded as "losers" with no popularity to protect them from bullies. But eventually, the bullies go too far. They always do..

>>51185 Cancel culture mostly affects public figures. If you have nothing to lose and don't really associate with most people then you're fine and at most you'll lose your job. it is just a bunch of retards going ape soykaf over nothing and next week will be someone else. Just don't go on Twitter not that there is any reason to.

>>56249 I am >>56238 Maybe I wasn't particularly clear. I don't know enough about various witch hunts or the inquisition to make a meaningful comparison between them and C.C., maybe I should correct that. My claim was that it appears that these periods of C.C. like activities in high intensity are relatively few and far between; they have certainly happened before, perhaps as bad or worse as now, but clearly what we are seeing presently is not something that was going on quite this way i.e. 30 or 40 years ago. posts like >>56235 seem to be trying to suggest that C.C. is normal. I contend that its not unheard of but its not quite normal either. It comes and it goes. And its here right now.

>>56006 >neurosuggesting that works. It doesn't. They will take every oppurtunity from you.

>>56254 my guess is its cyclic. ~40 years ago you had a pause but go back 80 years and you have hitler,mao,lenin all doing purges including book burning as well as killing people with opposing views. Now i would like to confirm/deny this theory but i have no real idea about 18th century

>>56255 Look at the quartening (not sure if accurate name) dude lives solely from outrage youtube videos "stupid soykaf sjws just did #9989". Then you have the PUA channels that basically say "women bad" in 1001 ways as their content. there is a market in being contrarian to mainstream in every way possible, all you have to do is have the 5 brain cells to avoid obvious soykaf that could get you derezzed and skirt the rules. And now look at yourself, the topic was just art. Unless you insist on getting famous on twatter jackshit could happen. The worst they could do now is downvote brigade to kill your reach. Most artists already solved the entire problem by simply running their own disc channel to sidestep twatter. And of course there are alternatives even better suited for art. tldr: just stop being a whiny bitch and do something instead of looking for excuses.

>>56257 I wouldn't group Lenin with Hitler and Mao, also the timelines are off there. Cultural revolution was 60s, rise of nazism was 30s (contemporary with most of Stalin's worst atrocities), rise of communism was 20s. >Now i would like to confirm/deny this theory but i have no real idea about 18th century I assume you mean 19th century. Well at the very least you had the French revolution in the 19th century, and in the 17th-18th centuries you had religious wars all over Europe. It's probably not cyclic, any more than the general ebbs and flows of peace and war are cyclic.

>>56266 point was 3 major leaders practiced canceling inquisition style for the first half of 19th century. Then you got the post ww2 calm and now we are moving again towards inquisition. So going backwards gotta know 18th century to verify if it fits same pattern.

>>56199 >Why does people refer to old things as if they were some brand new trend? Because it's on a new frontier and the news media treats it as a new trend.