What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Cancel Culture

gaiusmarius

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
Cancelling 'Cancel Culture': The rise and fall of the ‘wokerati’

[YOUTUBEIF]_3MccCsSuU0[/YOUTUBEIF]

pretty interesting short video on the phenomenon of cancel culture by australian sky news.

i really hope that people wake up to the totalitarian nature of this horrible phenomenon practiced mostly by the so called woke twiteratti. or wokeratti as they say, lol.

they want to make life better by abolishing free speech, and the discussion of anything they disaprove of.
 
X

xavier7995

Hey ill bite.

Nobody is infringing upon people's 1st amendment right to say what they want/publish what they want. You have the absolute right to say what you want. You do not have the right to stand in my yard and do it, also, I am under no obligation to take those views into consideration or to not have them impact my view of the person. Its a right to stand in a public place and yell about the jews or whatever, but it is my right to not give it an audience. It is also my right to not give it a space, i don't have a responsibility to let someone stand in my yard and make their statements. The real world example I would use is my religious neighbors that stand in their yard and shout the Bible, thats their right, but i don't need to listen to it and by that same token it's my right to crank up some tunes to drown it out.

Taking it from a personal situation to a business setting, i think the Supreme Court was right in that case of the bakery that didnt want to make wedding cakes for gays. I believe private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone...and yes, logically that would include refusing to serve black people if that's their wish. I have the right to vote with my feet and dollars and not support said business. My thinking is basically that if I own a diner or something that the local skinheads decide they want to hang out at, it should be my right to tell them to gtfo and they aren't welcome. Other than my personal views, it would make business sense as I would assume most customers are not going to want to eat their fries next to the master race.

From that small business example you can expand out to something large like Twitter. They are a publicly traded company, but its important to note that doesnt make them a public place such as a park maintained by the state. As a public company, they are duty bound to the shareholders to make a profit. If the content they carry is offensive to the masses who opt to vote with their feet, then the company is duty bound to address whatever the issue is. If 5% of the user base is causing 95% of the total users to leave, then the company needs to fix it or go out of business like that bakery. Private enterprise does not owe you a right to speech in what amounts to their yard. Nobody is stopping people from developing their own platforms and saying what they want, they just aren't letting theirs be used.
 
dramamine

dramamine

Well-known member
nepalnt21 said:
if it's offensive, i believe a discussion about it is necessary.
Click to expand...

Offensive to whom? There isn't a universal standard, and there will never be one. The best we can do is to speak our own mind and not demand or manufacture consensus.
 
gaiusmarius

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
Sunshineinabag said:
How do I make it a YouTube video like your gaus?
Click to expand...

first you need to copy the part of the url that comes at the end after the = symbol

it will look something like this: g3mqvzN8NVM

you then go to advanced reply page where you will find a youtube button.

use it to put that code in like bellow, just without the *

[YOUTUBEIF*]g3mqvzN8NVM[/YOUTUBEIF*]
 
gaiusmarius

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
xavier7995 said:
Hey ill bite.

Nobody is infringing upon people's 1st amendment right to say what they want/publish what they want. You have the absolute right to say what you want. You do not have the right to stand in my yard and do it, also, I am under no obligation to take those views into consideration or to not have them impact my view of the person. Its a right to stand in a public place and yell about the jews or whatever, but it is my right to not give it an audience. It is also my right to not give it a space, i don't have a responsibility to let someone stand in my yard and make their statements. The real world example I would use is my religious neighbors that stand in their yard and shout the Bible, thats their right, but i don't need to listen to it and by that same token it's my right to crank up some tunes to drown it out.

Taking it from a personal situation to a business setting, i think the Supreme Court was right in that case of the bakery that didnt want to make wedding cakes for gays. I believe private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone...and yes, logically that would include refusing to serve black people if that's their wish. I have the right to vote with my feet and dollars and not support said business. My thinking is basically that if I own a diner or something that the local skinheads decide they want to hang out at, it should be my right to tell them to gtfo and they aren't welcome. Other than my personal views, it would make business sense as I would assume most customers are not going to want to eat their fries next to the master race.

From that small business example you can expand out to something large like Twitter. They are a publicly traded company, but its important to note that doesnt make them a public place such as a park maintained by the state. As a public company, they are duty bound to the shareholders to make a profit. If the content they carry is offensive to the masses who opt to vote with their feet, then the company is duty bound to address whatever the issue is. If 5% of the user base is causing 95% of the total users to leave, then the company needs to fix it or go out of business like that bakery. Private enterprise does not owe you a right to speech in what amounts to their yard. Nobody is stopping people from developing their own platforms and saying what they want, they just aren't letting theirs be used.
Click to expand...

i disagree about facebook and twitter, they are monopolies number 1.

number 2 they are the new public square. there is no other twitter where people can go speek feely to the same numbers of people. twitter and facebook should be looked at like a public utility of the modern age.

number 3, those controvertial postings is what twitter and face book live from, their algorythims promote that shit to your feed taylor made to engage you as long as possible.

their banning is often agenda driven, based on the principle of cancel culture. this can be seen by the constant revision and lengthening of the list of banned subjects and words.
 
X

xavier7995

They are not the public square though, as they are not funded or controlled by the general public or government; they are a for profit business. If I have a party I dont have to let everyone in, even if its just a 5 buck cup party. I would be a bit reluctant on taking over private enterprise to make it public space where the sort of rights you seem to want would apply.

People don't owe you an audience, not having people listen to what you say does not diminish your right to say things. There isn't anything stopping conservatives from making their own platforms, i believe there is some conservative version of Facebook (parler) that boots liberals. I think that's fine. They shouldn't be forced to hear a pov they don't want, same as liberals. Not having a large user base to spread whatever message isn't the problem of the places that do. If I start a restaurant and no one shows up, its not the fault of the place across town where they all eat.
 
gaiusmarius

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
xavier7995 said:
They are not the public square though, as they are not funded or controlled by the general public or government; they are a for profit business. If I have a party I dont have to let everyone in, even if its just a 5 buck cup party. I would be a bit reluctant on taking over private enterprise to make it public space where the sort of rights you seem to want would apply.

People don't owe you an audience, not having people listen to what you say does not diminish your right to say things. There isn't anything stopping conservatives from making their own platforms, i believe there is some conservative version of Facebook (parler) that boots liberals. I think that's fine. They shouldn't be forced to hear a pov they don't want, same as liberals. Not having a large user base to spread whatever message isn't the problem of the places that do. If I start a restaurant and no one shows up, its not the fault of the place across town where they all eat.
Click to expand...

thats all very well, but i never said people should be forced to listen, lol.

truth is facebook and twitter have too much power to remain as they are. they need to be chopped up into national sites, where all data is kep in the countries the member lives in. they have become monopoly like giants that can influence elections better then any chinese or russian hackers.

no sensible government should allow a private for profit corporation have that power, its undemocratic in the extreem and its ripe for manipulation and abuse. cut them up, let them communicate by all means, but members datta should stay in members home nations.
 
gaiusmarius

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
thats exactly the point, these sites are not allowing the viewers to just choose what to watch, they make decisions about who can succeed and who's content will be supressed or banned. if it was a full free market i wouldn't say a word. but it's not, its agenda driven.
 
T

Teddybrae

I am simply too old to understand wtf this thread is about. No, I have not clicked the links. Seems I have to click a link to find out what I 'm clicking a link for! Too mysterious for me ...
 
Brother Nature

Brother Nature

Well-known member
gaiusmarius said:
no sensible government should allow a private for profit corporation have that power, its undemocratic in the extreem and its ripe for manipulation and abuse. cut them up, let them communicate by all means, but members datta should stay in members home nations.
Click to expand...


That's capitalism though, you earn more money than your government, you get to put your fingers in that (apple) pie. Microsoft just bought the American arm of Tik-tok, the US has halted any progress Huawai is making, and Amazon is looking at an Alibaba "American version". All these companies do is echo the imperialistic nature of the country they were founded in to use that as a model for advancement, and it clearly works. These companies just know the system they were brought up in and I personally think it's somewhat genius (in a business sense) they exploit that to their advantage, but the problem isn't the companies, it's the system that allows their monopolistic advancement. The Silicon Valley types are no different than the Rockefeller's, the Oil Dynasties, Railroad tycoons, Etc..., they just discovered earlier than the government that your data and ego are more valuable than your money. How else would twitter even be a thing? If you don't engage it'll mean nothing to you, but that's the hard part, how do we know what to engage in and what not to when it's these types of companies giving you that information.
 
Gypsy Nirvana

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
- The end of capitalism is when most all the wealth is in the hands of a very few - and as we are seeing as we go thru this huge societal change that Covid has brought us - this situation is becoming even more desperate - no less than A Great Depression - with millions becoming unemployed - and so becoming more desperate in being able to support their families and themselves - these all leads to social unrest - and often revolution -

- This huge societal shift puts even more wealth in the hands of the monopolistic corporate military complex industrial machine and their tech arms in Silicone Valley and elsewhere - Wealth, and the power to engineer the media to further their gains - gives them a virtual 'sho'in' when influencing the masses with their latest drama production - in the news - online - or in Hollywood - one so replicates the other these days -

- Very much like the Rockefeller's and Carnegie's of their day - the owners of these very powerful modern internet 'Social Media' sites have no real competition - and if they think they do - then they will just buy it out - and then they can dictate what we see - what we can say - influence what we might think - what we can buy - and so effect what we actually do - 24/7 -

- Those of us who have been online for 30 years or so have seen this sort of corporate control initially embracing, and then gripping the internet ever tighter - as its power and influence has become much greater - and many millions more people are online to be influenced these days - The internet is still very much a growth industry - and I don't think it'll ever take a down turn until we run out of electricity -


Brother Nature said:
That's capitalism though, you earn more money than your government, you get to put your fingers in that (apple) pie. Microsoft just bought the American arm of Tik-tok, the US has halted any progress Huawai is making, and Amazon is looking at an Alibaba "American version". All these companies do is echo the imperialistic nature of the country they were founded in to use that as a model for advancement, and it clearly works. These companies just know the system they were brought up in and I personally think it's somewhat genius (in a business sense) they exploit that to their advantage, but the problem isn't the companies, it's the system that allows their monopolistic advancement. The Silicon Valley types are no different than the Rockefeller's, the Oil Dynasties, Railroad tycoons, Etc..., they just discovered earlier than the government that your data and ego are more valuable than your money. How else would twitter even be a thing? If you don't engage it'll mean nothing to you, but that's the hard part, how do we know what to engage in and what not to when it's these types of companies giving you that information.
Click to expand...
 
WHIPEDMEAT

WHIPEDMEAT

Modortalan
Supermod
Veteran
before : 1 vote = 1 person
now : 1 vote = 1 dollar


coke cola and nuke (just do it) have bigger influence on society than ever so is corporate bussines private at this level playground of some, and do whatever they want .. at this impact level on society .. sure it is double standard capitalism as everything.



average guys can win and loose some of the big corps can t loose, only win.
 
Microbeman

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
gaiusmarius said:
i disagree about facebook and twitter, they are monopolies number 1.

number 2 they are the new public square. there is no other twitter where people can go speek feely to the same numbers of people. twitter and facebook should be looked at like a public utility of the modern age.

number 3, those controvertial postings is what twitter and face book live from, their algorythims promote that shit to your feed taylor made to engage you as long as possible.

their banning is often agenda driven, based on the principle of cancel culture. this can be seen by the constant revision and lengthening of the list of banned subjects and words.
Click to expand...

Xavier is 100% correct
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top