Is Cancel Culture Toxic?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лис 2021
- You know the drill. Someone does, or says, something offensive. A public backlash -- typically on Twitter -- ensues. Then come the calls to "cancel" that person, brand, or institution. That usually means the loss of cultural cache, political clout, and often a job or career. While the term "cancelling" has roots in a misogynistic joke, it has come to be one of the most prominent tools of progressive activists. Many see "cancelling" as a modern-day means of holding people to account, calling out injustice, and breaking down ingrained systems of prejudice and exploitation, particularly for the historically marginalized. But others see it differently. They are sounding alarms about the emergence of a new cancel culture where digital mobs police our speech, invade our rights, and even put our physical safety at risk. They argue that cancel culture has created a society ruled by online censorship and eroded our public discourse. Against this backdrop, we ask: Is cancel culture toxic?
#intelligencesquaredus #iq2us #cancelculture #opentodebate
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
It always saddens me when people who want to more freedom feel it is ok to oppress others while they clime up
she really played identity politics for the entire debate thinking they were strong arguments lol
Yeah, she also straw maned, whatabout, and used ad-hominems.
She was a joke.
But she’s in a religion of identity.
Just listen to her condescending tone.
It’s the hubris of the devout.
“That’s just white people acting white”
The fact that no one had the guts to call her out on such a ridiculous and racist statement shows that even in a debate people are silenced out of fear.
@Arcanos Cobain I think the pro team certainly did not agree. The individualistic view that Kasparov has advocated through the years is specifically about judging an individual by his/her merits and not by group identity, based on skin color or other superficial attributes.
I think the reason not to call her out on that was to avoid getting into debating Critical Race Theory. Cancel Culture is much more vulnerable than Critical Race Theory.
Cancel Culture is all about threatening people on existential or economical levels besides damaging their dignity. It's a completely un-defensible position, whereas Critical Race Theory has this myth about all Whites having supremacy and conspiring against non-Whites to maintain that with the means of maintaining institutional racism. This is more difficult to attack, given the fact that a lot of things need explanation. For instance, CRT is mixing up correlation with causation, has completely unfounded and stereotype-based, even racist assumptions, that can be easily detected by a learned and intelligent person who actually cares about the facts, but these debates are all about convincing everyone. "Everyone" not only includes simple-minded people, but they are the large majority. So a lot of explanation is needed for a simple-minded person, who is not trained in scientific thinking before he/she understands why CRT is fallacious. This is why CRT is successful. It operates with feelings and hides the fact of its hollowness beneath fancy speech.
@Arcanos Cobain I have been following Garry Kasparov for decades, since he was world chess champion between 1985 and 2000. He obviously disagrees. There is nothing wrong about thinking about possible alternative explanations, but in the case of Kasparov we know that he disagrees.
@Arcanos Cobain yeah, certain types of racism are cool
@Arcanos Cobain that was sarcasm, but yes.
It's so smug the way people like Karen smile as they are making their points. It's like they think they are talking to children.
Please bring back the debates that were held in person. We really lose something with these zoom call meetings.
Aye
Yes! And they were already
6 feet apart.
Terrible. Please re-do this incredibly important debate with qualified debaters who are willing to say something meaningful.
or don't, because how is this even up for debate?
@@trinydex I agree it’s not up for debate. But I actually don’t know why you think it’s not up for debate, which means it kinda is. Which is sad.
@@holdendepardo4397 because the prompt has a self evident answer. cancel culture is assuredly toxic. cancel culture literally stops debate, which is apparently what you're for...
@@trinydex No, I agree with you. By being vague about my agreement with you I was demonstrating that it’s not obvious where someone stands. I think it’s sad that people don’t see it that way we do. But the fact that so many people don’t means it’s something that does need to be debated.
@@holdendepardo4397 on some degree maybe the fact that this all exists is evidence of entropy. in the age of information, there's disinformation and the more information there is the harder it is to process it all.
it's not lost on me that there's an aspect of our conversation that is a bit meta. perhaps our certainty that our view is better or important makes us part of the problem. or perhaps it just makes entropy all the more real.
The Netflix employee was fired for disparaging the company on social media, a clause that was in her hiring contract. Dave Chappelle didn't break any of Netflix policies
The white corporations just LUUUUV Dave. Hey Dave bit of a contradiction there. Loved by the white suits especially when you attack African American transgender. Take the money and run Dave. Byeeee.
@@paulmcgrory5165 Saying that everyone came out from a woman and that gender is a fact should not be offensive. These are true statements. What was Dave's most egregious act according to you?
@@LajosArpad85 They are not true statements. Maybe you should study the statements of the professional transgender girls that say they have done business with Dave. Hey Dave you really like transgender girls dont ya? Thats the real joke here. And its on you and his fan boys as Dave laughs all the way to the bank. Grow up.
@@paulmcgrory5165
1. You did not answer my question. I asked you to tell me what was Dave's most egregious act according to you. This should be an easily answerable question.
2. Yes, everyone came out from a woman. A womb and a vagina is necessary for a child to be born. An exception from this rule is the test-tube baby, which is technically possible, but it affects ~0% of the population. I'm talking about the rule, not about its exceptions. Similarly, I agree with the statement that says "Nobody has 3 eyes". You may find some strange genetic conditions that come as a counter-example, but even if such persons exist, the prevalence is ~0%.
3. Gender is a biological fact. Your feelings do not transform your bone structure, your genitalia and your genes. It is true that some people do not like to have the gender they were born with, but that does not change their gender. Changing gender is a long and difficult medical procedure. The very fact that some people are doing such transformation shows that gender is a fact they are unhappy with and that they seek to change. We do not have to act as if reality would be the same as the fantasy of some people who are not happy with themselves.
4. What's a professional transgender?
5. Earlier you have said that the "White corporations LUUUUV Dave". Dave is Black. Are you saying that the White corporations are not racist? Is CRT wrong? :)
6. Why should I care whether Dave is rich? I'm quite happy if he is doing well. Do you envy his money? You seem to be a Communist. Are you?
@Arcanos Cobain Another pathetic fan boy. Suckers. He hasnt told a humorous joke since 2010. In fact fan boys like you are the joke. LOL
Ironic that Karen keeps saying ‘we must listen’ - yet she is ok with a) students who WONT listen to speakers they feel MIGHT offend them and b) that she herself is not listening to the examples that the opposition are quoting - instead, she keeps dismissing them as “you have still yet to define …” - they did, over and over. Also, notice how Karen (the irony in the name is not lost on me) resorts to identity politics to argue that cancel culture is a good thing. Not only is that a weak argument, but it also highlights exactly the opposite of what she is advocating: ‘since I fall into one of the minority identities, I am able to cancel’ - so yes, you are acknowledging that cancel culture a) exists and b) is not reserved only for celebrities, but to be use by anyone in any number of minority groups (trans, gay, black, Hispanic, Asian, women etc) against anyone considered ‘a majority group’ (white, male, rich etc) - that’s millions and millions of examples right there. I am a lecturer - I look at what is happening in American Universities and I cringe - I am now dubious as to the credibility of academic publication that comes from the US since I know that a vast majority will be tinged with identity politics. It’s no longer about accuracy and debate, but rather ‘writing about the appropriate things and avoiding the inappropriate things’. I hope this never permeates South Africa to the extent that it does the US. I’m hopeful that cancel culture will eventually cancel itself.
It is only when you lack the intellectual firepower to rebutt, as well as effective and profound ideas, that one must resort to stifling any oppostion or pushback...
So Karen is basically just saying cancel culture is not only not toxic but it is justified and right. She has the perfect name to hold that stance.
I knew she would make it about race etc and she didn't disappoint me. She came to this debate to misuse it for her own agenda and didn't contribute to it in any way. I guess the first name needed to be honored lol
So according to Chuck Todd cancel culture does exist. But it’s not bad because it can’t be clearly defined. Got it.
Ah yes, I remember now why I stopped watching these. Such rubbish lol.
I mean Kmele did fine keeping things structured but jeeze that Karen.
She lost me in the opening statement bringing up "actually, actual" Coronovirus out of the blue. Then just went on to play identity politics while trying to gaslight the whole world which most everyone can agree and see around them plain as day, is going to hell in a handbasket. Claiming it's just discomfort. Trying to conflate the struggle of minorities while conveniently ignoring canceling done by "white people acting white". Spooky lady.
Can't wait until these are in person again.
Beginning of the debate I believe that anything designed to chill free speech, free civil debate, limits the ideas you are exposed to and personal growth. Cancel culture, to me, isnt discussing the merits of a position but instead an attempt to shut down discussion of that position. Punish that individual and set an example for those watching. So yeah I think it's something pretty undesirable ;)
how can this debate series, supposedly prestigious, even entertain this mockery of philosophy?
It is ironic that an entire debate channel / series (been listening for 12 years now and started to listen on NPR) about talking about serious topics with honesty and openness is actually intertaining a discussion about if it is legitimate to attempt to silence someone. This truly makes me sad.
John Donvan you a great humble presenter keep up your awesome work still watching you on these debate from China.
It seems to me that the arguments against the motion can be summarizes in 3 points: 1. Denial: it is not really happening. 2. It affects only people of power 3. It is fine as long as it affects people of certain groups, and when it affects them, it is something else (White america).
1. Denial: It is epistemologically difficult to prove that something does NOT exist. Since we have a term and a definition of it, it surely exists as a concept. Now, the question is whether it exists in reality. It is easy to see that there are examples of online mobs virtually lynching their target for thought crimes. If one is interested to find examples, it is very easy to find a plethora of examples via a very simple act of typing "cancel culture examples" in a search engine. But even the people arguing against the motion described how they were cancelled.
2. If affects only people of power? First, according to some theories every Whites are people of power. Second, unjust mobs should not affect anyone, independently of how powerful they are.
3. I did not even understand what they wanted to get to. The problem we are discussing is that mobs are (so far "only") virtually lynching people they disagree with, either by publicly shaming them, or fire them, or boycotting them. Cancel culture, being "cancelled" means that a group of people, because of some perceived thought crimes are actively trying to harm a person existentially (being fired), economically (boycotted) or in his/her dignity (being shamed). Starting to call this phenomenon by a different name is chickening out from the debate.
I agree with your comment, obviously.
Pretty much. And all of that feels like gaslighting.
That woman is ideologically possessed. A resentful, power-seeking ideologue
Yeah.. I thought that after the age of Enlightenment that societies had gotten rid of their elite clergy class.
@@vivarc2 spot on. It has the worst aspects of cults and religions woven into it
Absolutely correct. When she smiles, she can barely hide the hateful grimace that she would show if she was not "smiling". This is the kind of person who is happy to decide who is "the enemy of the people" and what the punishment should be.
She is quite scary. And not in a fun Halloween kind of way.
@@LajosArpad85 the weird twitches of dropping the smile mask are especially notable around 45:00
Against: "cancel culture is not real, also its GREAT!"
Precisely👌🏾
The professor is either highly disingenuous about his closing statement about Gauguin, or he’s ignorant. They did not have the same standards as modern society in the late 19th century. Indeed, in France today, the age of consent is 15 years old. It’s a different culture, with different standards. You’d think a university professor could comprehend that.
Some pretty weak arguments against the motion. I think it's kind of shocking that anyone would support mob justice that can result in serious ramifications (personal, professional and social), where the mob rule decides your fate without even giving the victim of the mob a chance to even present a defense before their fate is sealed. The mob is not usually fueled by reason, or facts, but rather pure negative emotions like rage and anger. A mob like this shouldn't be deciding the fate of anything.
Worse yet, expressing any sort of defense or support towards the victim of the mob, even a defense as tame asking the mob to reserve judgement, can result in the mob turning on you as well! It's profoundly uncivilized behaviour.
It's literally mob justice that we have known in the past, except in its online form, and it can be quite abhorrent. Anyone who is remotely just, and is familiar with the many examples of "cancel culture", knows this is far from a just mob (Gary Kasparov gives one example of this where an astrophysicist isn't able to speak about Astrophysics because of a comment he made years ago on topic he wasn't planning on speaking about anyways)
Other debaters aside, Kmile presented some good arguments and saved this debate from being a complete train wreck.
Karen clearly does not get the issue here - this is not about letting marginal voices speak. This should be encouraged. But shutting down professors is just being a bully.
Past caring, I will never bow down to this. All people no matter who they are should be extended compassion. However, cancel culture and especially the gaslighting used to defend it, is most certainly toxic.
There’s truth on both sides of the argument, on the extreme ends of both side’s is where we find the most dishonest actors
I love how Kmele quoted stats and Karen responded by asking if thats really happening lol. There need to be more intelligent debaters instead of Karen and Erich here.
Karen was not only ignorant but toxic.
I agree. Karen came off really uneducated. Why did she turn this into a race thing?
Speaking of cancelling. Why Did Kmele Foster's preview get taken down?
On the matter of campus protests of speakers, the students who wish to hear that speaker have every bit as much right to hear the speaker as the Leftist students do to hear their speakers. They pay tuition and are students at that institution too. They all have the same rights.
52:18 *really obvious cut....why did you cut out the strongest "for" argument?
The entire “harm” rhetoric is a palpable lie. It is merely a tool to silence views one dislikes. It’s “harm” when someone hold a view they don’t hold. But it’s not “harm” when they hold views others don’t hold.
FOR
Not entering my personal info to vote. Sorry.
For what it's worth, you can blame concerns about cancel culture for that.
You can put in blank space on the personal fields for the vote, they don't actually require any input to cast the vote.
I don't think Karen fully understood the core concept. Especially listening to her closing statements, cancel culture is NOT about justice or injustice. It is not about progress of minority groups. It is about actively discouraging honest speech and deplatforming people for wrong think. I don't like racist but I honestly reveal in the chance to prove to them and anybody watching or reading our talk that racism is wrong, immoral, and harmful to not only who they hate but to the racist as well. If your ideas are good and just, you do not need to silence the immoral. The need to silence someone is directly disproportionate to the amount of conviction you have in your own ideas.
@Arcanos Cobain Don't mix up criticism with lynch mobs. Differences:
1. Criticism attacks the idea, not the person
2. Criticism is individual, lynch mobs are a collective
3. Criticism can be constructive, lynch mobs are always destructive
Cancel Culture is the culture of censorship, that forms its adherence into hate groups that actively violate the basic rights for free speech and free expression of those who they disagree with. While you may criticize people you disagree with, it is disturbing if that's done in a virtual lynch mob and if the aim is not disproving a bad idea, but the shaming and harming of the individual.
Here in Eastern Europe we had several totalitarian dictatorships, starting with the Cristian theocratic rule, then Islamic conquerors, then the Habsburg Empire, then Communism, then National Socialism, then Communism again. We learned the hard way that having a single moral standard enforced on others is inherently bad. My gosh, the U.S. was a model country for us. But with the marxist takeover that happens nowadays there we no longer want to emulate you.
@Arcanos Cobain
I want to give you all the credit you deserve here. Sounds like your heart is in the right place so I will use the terms you used and maybe you can understand my points better.
The 1960s was a time of racism and sexism. America was still one of the most free countries (not the most) in the world even for black Americans. However, racism was built into culture, standards, and even our morality. Would you have wanted our state or media companies of the Era to have the ability to make it impossible for MLK to get his message out simply because it didn't adhere to the moral standard of the time? Do you think banks should have not allowed their organization to be able to take donations to help pay for protesters bail? Do you think that every protester should have lost their jobs simply because they participated in a protest for a cause the violates societies morality? I don't think so. I hope you would agree. The speech and discussion it caused and spread is what brought about the freedoms many have today.
Just because something is current morality does not mean it is perfect nor does it mean it is necessarily good. It might be good, but we can never know for sure unless the discussion happens. If you are sure of your morality is good, then having the conversation does not hurt, it can only help.
Finally, even IF your morality IS Good and Even if it is Perfect... if you celebrate and support the creation of methods and means to silence and depression opposition, if you lose one election to someone even worse than Trump, those methods and means will be turn against you. Do not celebrate, participate, or help creates the societal means to silence opposition... if nothing else, to prevent you from being silenced in the future. The right is learning that right now when the very systems created to go after terrorism is now going after them. I don't want you to learn the hard way as well.
@@zukezamamee9033 Excellent reasoning. You show a lot of empathy while you speak with good people who honestly believe in Cancel Culture. I think your reasoning should convince Arcanos Cobain, who really seem to be goodwilling.
@Arcanos Cobain You state that socially shaming, ostracising and silencing people are tools used by every society. You are mistaken. Let me elaborate with not one, but two counter-examples.
I live in Romania as a Hungarian, so I'm part of both the Hungarian society of Hungary (I live in a border town) and the Romanian society. Neither the Hungarian nor the Romanian society uses these tools.
Both societies have some values that are expected from every individual to adhere to, but, as long as the individual is not obviously destructive (such as physically aggressive or something of the like), they are usually not attacked by virtual or non-virtual lynch mobs.
People here are fairly tolerant to others in general and usually no groups have the intention to humiliate and financially destroy people for "wrongthink". Actually, we have learnt this kind of tolerance from the U.S. back in the days when the U.S. was still a country we could look up to. Nowadays, with extremists dictating what people are allowed to think in the U.S. I see your country as quickly transforming to something very similar to the Soviet Union.
One should have the freedom to think and speak freely, without fear of being punished for it. Cancel Culture is inherently bad, because it has a logical fallacy (called argumentum ad hominem) at its core, which is used irrationally to marginalize and psychologically/financially destroy people, instead of debating their point of view with rational arguments. It is also inherently destructive, because "canceling" people means destroying their hard-earned status because of a disagreement.
If I understood you correctly, you are not in favor of Cancel Culture per se, but you are in favor of marginalizing people for "wrongthink", so, to me it seems that your disagreement with Cancel Culture is not structural, but on the level of the goals. I consider the very nature of destructively and maliciously marginalizing people you disagree with totalitarian. For instance, we strongly disagree on this topic and your point of view, according to which marginalizing people you disagree with on core issues is something acceptable to you is seriously disturbing to me.
However, I do not aim to harm your person in any way, even though, for me your opinion is outrageous. I moderate myself and engage into a civil discourse, trying to convince you by rational means, respecting your right of thinking differently and I also avoid the blind belief that I am right. Of course I think I'm right, but I do not consider my point of view to be a proven absolute truth and I try to hear your counter-arguments sincerely. This is how civil discourses ought to be done in my opinion and NOT by discriminating people via a hate mob.
@Arcanos Cobain I get you have every right to ignore and not associate with someone you disagree with. I agree you have no moral (or responsibility) to listen to what they have to say... but that isn't "cancel culture". The term in common usage is to "de-platforming" someone with wrong think. Cancel Culture is not protesting the idea. It goal is to remove them from society with the express intent to make it impossible for them to express or spread their "bad ideas". That is not ignoring them. That is preventing others from hearing them. That isn't voluntarily ostracising someone on a person to person basis. That is a mob trying to take away the ability to communicate with people who WANT to hear them.
I can show you posts and petitions that make it clear. It is not about not hearing them. It is about not allowing them to speak. That is an inherently aggressive act. Thus, it is toxic.
I am writing this before the meat of the debate begins. I believe there are people on either side of the debate has gone too far. ( This does not necessarily include the debaters on this particular forum, as I have not yet heard the entire debate . )
No person is either ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. I believe that if a person’s contributions to society is GREATER THAN THEIR moral failings, their positive contributions should be acknowledged.
Lol, every time Karen says something stupid (which is regularly and frequently) Kmele smiles
"Nobody really loses their jobs or have their lives ruined."
Yeah, tell that to the (Hispanic) truck driver who was fired for supposedly flashing a "white power" sign (he was cracking his knuckles) outside his truck window.
Exactly…and the ok sign has long been debunked as any sort of bad sign (just a troll job by 4chan) it only really means ok or circle game and he wasn’t even doing that…absolute travesty
@Arcanos Cobain I’m not wrong, you’re talking about very few people who may use it in that way, versus the many millions who use it as an “ok” sign, circle game, or even hitting a three pointer in basketball. Also I simply can’t trust those who find WP and WS everywhere they look, they have distorted lenses
Sure he was. LOL
@Arcanos Cobain White Supremacists are also speaking. So, if you do not want to be confounded by the supremacists, then you need to stop speaking :D
Come on, man! Even if White Supremacists are using this sign with the meaning you have described, this sign has other meanings as well and the main meaning "ok". So, if someone is showing that sign, it is premature and fallacious to assume without further information that it was in support of White Supremacy...
Wow! This sounds extremely awful. Can you tell me where I can read about it? Thx!
Toxic: In the social and philosophical sense, an idea is toxic if it inherently causes trouble.
Cancel Culture: Culture built upon publicly shaming, boycotting people who disagree with the members of a mob. The shaming and boycotting may lead to job loss or economic bankruptcy, so Cancel Culture aims to pose existential threat to individuals who disagree with some thoughts.
Mechanism: Someone expresses his/her opinion about a topic that's disliked by the advocates of political correctness, so a mob is organized in order to at least discourage the person from expressing his/her opinion, but even destroy him/her, if necessary in economical terms. Cancel Culture's main tactic is the attack on the dignity of the victim.
In modern societies, ideological disagreements are ought to be addressed by public debates and arguments. Cancel Culture seeks to attack the person, not the argument and the basis of the attack is fueled by feelings rather than rational thought.
Since Cancel Culture is:
- forming mobs
- to destroy the people they dislike
- instead of having an adult discussion about the matter
- without rational thoughts
- stifling basic rights, such as free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and even scientific freedom
,
we know that Cancel Culture is the blueprint to express ideological censorship by organizing virtual lynch mobs that will misuse their individual freedom by actively and abusively persecute people (with legal means only) into submission.
Since Cancel Culture will only tolerate ideas they agree with and will actively engage in the infantile, but rather destructive attack of other people, often pushing them into suicide or depression, Cancel Culture is:
- damaging the mental health of its victims
- stifles free speech and discourages people from arguing against ideas they disagree with
- totalitarian
,
we can conclude that Cancel Culture is toxic.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
The woman brought up Dave Chappelle still having his Netflix deal. Let's talk about that. The only reason Netflix kept him on is because Netflix is a business and Dave Chappelle still generates income. He generates income because of his massive appeal. If he had less appeal and then was cancelled, he would have surely lost this Netflix deal. Look at Aziz Ansari. He lost everything after being cancelled. The very example she brought up proves her side wrong.
Who wants a coterie of hysterical nitwits to curate what materials they’re allowed to consume? If you don’t like it, don’t watch it or buy it.
exactly,it's like ww2 mentality. as they have the freedom to not watch or read, you have the freedom to watch or read those things.If not,that's on the same level as h*
Thank you Kmele for a great job in setting up a framework for the discussion open to understanding the other side's points, steelmanning some of their arguments and specially shining a light on the core issue of the relationship between culture, ideals and the embodiement of them in society as it relates to free-speech laws.
as soon as someone could be doing well,here come the past tweets,insta posts etc. people don't like to see people suceed at all anymore.
Intelligence Squared statement: "Cancel culture is toxic"
Karen: "muh racism"
It really seemed the debaters against the notion were conflating real and valid activism with the cancelling of individuals. You can raise your voice on topics you care about without having anyone cancelled.
They also just focused on the well known/famous and not even discussed those everyday, ordinary people who have had to face being cancelled and fired from their jobs for something "politically incorrect" they said, or tweeted or posted on Facebook. And then only to have that follow them around and has lead to people committing suicide. If that's not a problem and is not toxic then I don't know what is.
was it just me or did erich basically say cancel culture is toxic in his closing without actually saying it ?
I'm from iran and let me tell you you have no Idea how this makes people like me feel, and Mr Kasparov is should be nominated for peace awards or maybe a honorary monk title I don't know what exactly but world should reward him for not going absolutely insane in this debate and didn't lose control. Im always for challenging debates and stoic spirit in conversations at least,but oh my god this one was something. and let me add Karen was the most meaningful name I heard In my life for this "Intellectual" woman,get some reward for her mom too on the way . sry for my bad english everyone
I'm quite dismayed that they are not more concerned with free speech.
Just when I was about to lose all hope for this channel, then I went to the comment section. Good to see some people still have their sense
This journo lady probably got called out for her voicing racism…she also constantly veils herself in victimhood terms as a protective cloak, so weak especially when she’s obviously grown up with a silver spoon
interesting discussion, but... 60 minutes does not allow a full airing and opportunity to flesh out a decent range of issues, and to focus in on the more contentious. 90 mins please
It's a very slippery slope.
She brings up Chapelle special and forgets to mention that his trans friend committed suicide due to the woke Twitter mob
There is absolutely no evidence that was the case or why she committed suicide. So Dave had one trans friend. Wow. What a guy.
@@paulmcgrory5165 sadly many people have committed suicide coinciding with woke mobs trying to attack or ruin their lives…and even more have had their careers harmed over political correctness BS. So if you’re standing for cancel culture then you’re far less of a good guy than Chapelle
@@Cipher_X_x Any documentation there? Or just you pulled that from from your backside. Chappelle lied. She did not commit suicide because of the trans community. ransgender people have high rates of suicide. A 2014 study by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute, found 41 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide. Because of trans haters like Chappelle. Chappelle is a lying piece of garbage.
@@paulmcgrory5165 her family has sided with Chapelle, so I’ll side with him on this over some fool on UA-cam…people who’re pro cancel culture are authoritarians bending their knees to cancerous ideologies. If you don’t like Chapelle’s jokes then don’t watch his comedy, most people enjoy his work and have thicker skin then you apparently…getting offended at a comedians jokes is for weak minded people
@@Cipher_X_x Daphne Dorman left a note publicly just hours before she killed herself. It reads " “I’ve thought about this a lot before this morning. How do you say “goodbye” and “I’m sorry” and “I love you” to all the beautiful souls you know? For the last time. To those of you who are mad at me: please forgive me. To those of you who wonder if you failed me: you didn’t. To those of you feel like I failed you: I did and I’m sorry and I hope you’ll remember me in better times and better light.”
“I love you all. I’m sorry. Please help my daughter, Naia, understand that none of this is her fault. Please remind her that I loved her with every fiber of my being,”. Not one word about being hounded or bullied by the Trans community. Not one word about her great friend Dave. Chappelle lied about about Daphne. For him to use her tragic death as a basis of an attack on the Trans community is beneath contempt. He is garbage.
I was neutral towards both parties. Kasparov took it slightly too emotionally, and it felt a little like a speech against the enslavement of the human freedom. And then debaters on the motion against started to make serious mistakes. The thing that people are afraid to talk about is not what they believe in. They are afraid to question. I feel that fear, and most people I know feel that fear. And also, they should stick to their guns. If they say cancel culture doesn’t exist and then talk about how they were almost cancelled, it is difficult to take such arguments seriously.
Don't let every little thing get under your skin learn to let somethings slide
cancel culture be like: ''my friend said your'e a pea-doh'' proof? ''my friend said it.your'e cancelled now.'' 🤦♀
Karen does not seem to understand what the debate is all about
The con side lost at 50:40. This is the exact issue, the idea that a “mistake” was made and the “wrong” voice was given a platform. Who determines this? That’s what makes this so scary and Gary Kasparov was right to call him out on this.
The best argument by cancel culture proponents seems to be that the opponents of cancel culture are winning when it comes to famous people, so it's not a problem. Even if drugs are preventing the worst breakouts of disease, the disease is still a problem, and we should keep fighting it.
at least kmele was amazing! he should be doing more debates on cancel culture!
boy, she really talks alot. She is not letting anyone else talk.
I don't know who decided to get her on this debate but they did a bad job.
There were intelligent, qualified opponents who were ready to speak against the motion; unfortunately, they were cancelled before the debate started after incorrectly identifying Uzbeks as "Slavic Americans".
This debate is such a waste of time especially thanks to Karen who calls everyone a racist. Can't you invite less biased people? 😒
That's the point of debate have to have people of bias claim their side and collect more information, plus, it's also hypocritical on the side of anti-cancel culture to think that promoting all forms of speech and that embracing ignorance and the violation of law and ethics for pervasive freedom leads to a morally upright society.🤨🤨🤨
Moreover over and over. That's a word used when you have nothing important to say.
Karen gives a masterclass on how to be a professional victim.
Is cancel culture toxic? Well let me explain in the most concise way possible:
You can get in trouble simply by existing.
Its not just toxic, when you cancel or publicly shame people, irrespective of what they have said/done, you are just cheapening yourself, you are merely making a fool of yourself and making yourself look cheap
The one thing so wrong about the internet...a person's life can be made famous, or completely destroyed all with a single comment they made, a song they sung/wrote, the wrong hand gesture, a facial expression that didn't match a scenario type thing, etc. Words written in a comment have no emotion behind them, thus giving people their own interpretations, hence why the bible is so controversial for one example. (Interpreted a million different ways). what I totally loathe, are the people who can't be bothered to find out the truth behind something done or said before they crack their warrior knuckles and start typing crap like "just die" or " go kill yourself" . That alone shows me just how immature the world has gotten, and especially if hundreds of comments are like that. eg. A hispanic man lost his dream high paying job all because some loser misinterpreted his hand gesture as a white supremacist sign while hispanic guy was just twiddling his fingers around out his car window. FFS the guy was hispanic. How can he be a white supremacist???? The man was merely moving his fingers around while dangling his hand out his car window and a loser decided he was probably jealous of this guy's job and saw the hand sign in front of company logo on car door, and BAM...I'm gonna get this guy fired says a-hole. Yup, post his picture on the internet with the wrong words and the warriors came out to get him fired, and it worked. So that ahole who was probably white, got the hispanic guy fired all over 1 stupid fk'n picture that didn't even mean anything to the hispanic man. Personally, I think humans are pieces of shit to no end, hence why I only have very few good friends in my life. Most people will betray your trust in them so it's really not worth having large groups of friends, but rather just a few very close ones all your life. I can't even stand having strangers on my facebook, so I blocked the "add me" button on it. I only use it for news and talking with 3 very good long time friends I've have for more than 30 years. Just remember, the bigger your following the more chances you can be screwed completely over by one of them, all out of jealousy/envy. Trust NO ONE.
The irony of her name being Karen
Can "Cancel Culture" cancel the Federal Reserve Bank?
Lol
don't worry they will inevitably self cancel after all the shit that they have done to the financial system
Lol cancel culture is by people in power... so no. The Fed will cancel you.
Who won?
kmele
Kmele!
I was canceled today
How?
Cancel Culture be like
Twitter: your Canceled
Me: What did I do
Twitter: You said a slur
Me: it was 10 years ago tho
Twitter: "if I shot someone and get caught 10 years later, I still shot that person"
Me: 10 years ago that word was not a slur
Twitter: Your canceled we don't care
Me: Does not care a keeps uploading videos
WE STAN KASPAROV
Cancel culture is the free speech pushback and a real threat to the ideologs and polemists whose entire careers are just professional Karens and Trolls. Why are we not hearing in public discourse the philosophical discussions of why we shouldn't eat babies, for example? Because this is just an intellectual philosophical exercise to understand our foundations of ethics. This topic would be very explosive if the professional Karens and Trolls approached that topic as their hill to die on because its central to their groups' freedom to actually be able to exercise their group identity of eating babies. We do not and will not tolerate groups in this nation that have those values. So we cancel them when they espouse those beliefs. That is also our freedom to tell people we will not tolerate those values as a representative of who we are. So if you have views that are as abhorrent to civil society as that, such as political views that are masked as white supremacy, political discourse that is just obstructionist instead of actual governance, etc., then yes we will remove you from the public forums of our mass media. You are still free to have your own books, podcasts, etc on the internet, but we will not be allowing your positions in the national discussion any more than we allow the KKK or any other psychotic religious bigoted group to have a platform to normalize your values into the identity of who we are as people. We have the free speech to determine what we will or will not engage and entertain, but you can still have other avenues to talk about your ideas. We just don't have to give you a national platform.
Cancel Culture is all about attacking a person for thought crimes. It's an organized mob engaged into lobbying to destroy the existence of people (firing from their jobs, boycotting their products) and publicly shaming them. It's a lynch mob.
You have the right to express your disagreement with ideas you do not like. That's unquestionable. But on the other hand, lynch mobs are questioning the right of free speech and free expression of the people they strongly disagree with. You seem to support these virtual lynch mobs if their target is someone you disagree with about an issue you consider to be important.
So, if I say that gender is biological, can I be targeted by such a mob? Obviously. If I say that the majority of White people are not racist, can I be targeted by such a mob? Obviously. If I refuse to use the pronouns some people are trying to force me to use, can I be targeted by such a mob? Obviously. As a result, the "cancelling" (in reality: censorship) you seem to be so eager to support does not necessarily target hate groups. It often targets peaceful people who happen to think about the world differently. Ask Jordan Peterson.
Btw: thank you for proving with your comment that Cancel Culture exists. Some arguments against the motion were based on denying this obvious fact. At least you acknowledge that the thing exists.
Launching the ‘I am Spartacus’ movement
Its 71BC, and the Romans just rounded up the last of those pesky gladiator rebels led by Spartacus, that mean spirited troll who said and did many nasty things to the Romans. Naturally, they were very ‘cross’ with him, and not having a proper photo ID, asked the real Spartacus to stand up and apologize. All of the captives summarily rose up and said they were Spartacus. Apology accepted, and then they were crucified anyways, with their crosses lining the Appian way.
Speed forward to the present day, and if you are a rebellious troll who said something nasty sometime in your pitiful life, you too will be crucified, virtually that is, and your career, reputation, and UA-cam spot will be burned to the ground, apology not accepted. The PC radar is unerringly precise, something the Roman’s sadly lacked, and the only way to get around it is to jam it, so that when a google search looks for your faux pas, it will discover everybody’s, who like all the faux Spartacus’ of yesteryear, have to be crucified. Well, I for one am all in, and hereby found the ‘I am Spartacus’ movement for social justice and collective social suicide.
To join the ‘I am Spartacus’ movement, each of us should place the follow phrase in their social media feed.
Just say ‘I hate: blacks, transexuals, republicans, jews, Brazilians, Atlanta Falcons fans’, or you name it. Lather up and do this once a day. Soon the PC radar will be jammed with millions of malefactors who will soon have a cross to bear, which believe me, is a whole lot better than having to put up with this cancel culture nonsense for another minute.
From doctormezmer, on the web
Im sadden no one in the comments is talking about both sides as this is a controversial issue where no one side is all "right", its all grey. The main ethic issues i find for "is cancel culture toxic?" Are 1. If social change is worth sacrificing a select few and putting increase pressure on all. 2. Is there currently any more proven better method to hold power and institutions into account and finally the usual 3. Freedom of speech is freedom to expressive ones self without fear of consequences but free speech does have consequences on others freedom of speech. I would say the "isnt toxic" side argues well that there is no going backwards from social media being used to call people out and that everyone will have to accept that this is the the norm that social scrutiny is now part of life as we are more connected and more voices are being vocal. I would imperfectly say it's like fear of the law. This side also advocates that currently this has been the best method for instigating change, however the other side is right that it can go too far and that a more consider method should be normalized so that more people can feel confident they won't get cancelled for pushing the boundary on some topics. Finally I think the "isnt toxic" side did shoot them on the foot for saying that while legitimate students can protest a campus decision for getting a speaker, campuses should never be swayed by those protest unless there is a clear discredited detail about the person, like the physicist speaker not having a physics degree. Cancelling based on past unrelated speech is toxic. In the end the closing statements from both the post soviet guy and girl still ring true that more speech and discourse is always needed as speech has consequences to either change a government or get someone canceled. So for now cancel culture is toxic, but it will hopefully improve itself to be a better form of advocacy.
I support the motion, but I must say: being a master of chess doesn't necessarily make one an even remotely coherent public speaker.
Boycott disney! Just because. They're not worth your time. Or money.
Oops I'm not an Amarican or Canadian I'm stuck in your silly plans in care resthell. Carousel carousel that goes round and as a big joke. Gawd Hard to believe anyone could think any different. Cause the fairy tails talesare ridic,u,culess
I feel like none of the debaters didn't discuss what getting "canceled" actually is. It's people using their free speech and spending power to not support someone who expresses ideas they don't like. People get "canceled" because customers tell a company that they don't want to do business with someone who supports ideologies they find reprehensible.
Example: I have a right to tell a store's owner that I won't shop at their store while they employ a white supremist. I don't want even a fraction of the money I spend at that business going to someone who espouses white supremacy. If enough of their customers take action in that same way, the business has a choice as to weather that white supremist is worth keeping on staff. You could say that employee was "canceled."
If you want to stop cancel culture, what would that entail? Stopping the general population from voicing their own opinions online? Stopping people from gathering and protesting? Requiring people to attend shows of artists they disagree with? Require people work for bosses who engage in behavior they don't like?
"Cancel Culture" is what happens when many individuals using their own economic and rhetorical freedoms to not support people they find reprehensible. Its always been there, its just more effective because the internet allows us to share information much more quickly, resulting in these tsunami's of public opinion. As a result, companies react to the actions of their costumers in the way that's best for their bottom line. Cancel culture is a bi-product of free speech and a free market.
Cancel culture is more than just the majority voicing their opinion.
Many opinions that will get you cancelled are actually supported by the vast majority.
Most people think there are biological differences between men and women, yet people are afraid so publicly.
@@iwanttolearnmagic1171 I don't think a boycott every needed 51% of customers to take place to be effective. For some companies, losing 10-20% of their customers could sink them. Boycotting and protesting are both 2nd amendment rights, just like it is people's rights to give got takes in trans people. Someone being canceled is just a business decision around a boycott.
@@DavidCraigRogers In most cases the mob consists of a tiny percentage of a populaton.
And their tactics, while mostly legal, are often agressive, fear promoting and damsging to a free and open public conversation.
I'm not adcocating to make boycots or demonstrations illegal - that would be another form of cancel culture.
I am saying they would loose their power if people realized that most people don't share the opinions of the mob on most issues.
@@DavidCraigRogers I want Cancel Culture to stop. But I do not want to use any legislative or other forceful means to reach that goal, except rational thoughts and arguments.
Look at the term: "Cancel Culture"
It's a culture built on "canceling" people whose thoughts are violating the expectation of whatever censor is there to determine what can be said and what not.
If you say something that I strongly disagree with, then I will attack your argument and tare it to pieces. But I do not want to shame you or harm you in any way. I don't want to cancel you. I try to convince you that building a culture upon canceling others is bad.
If I don't like a store, then I do not go there to shop. But it's not important for me to convince others that they should dislike the shop as well. I do not organize mobs that are attempting to destroy people for their views.
Your example was very good. Yes, a White Supremacist might work at a shop. Is White Supremacy a bad idea? Surely. What if I organize a mob so that the person gets cancelled? The person will be eventually fired. And when the person finds another job, then another mob gets him/her fired. You see, this is ideological persecution. We had such systems here in Eastern Europe and trust me: you do not want to live in such a society.
So, how can we address the problem of White Supremacy? By inviting White Supremacists to debates and epically beating their arguments.
AGAINST