« What Are They Trying to Accomplish? | Main | Xiànzài huàngè wánquán bùtóng de dōngxī!! »

June 16, 2020

Comments

There are real windmills to tilt at, if you're so inclined. This doesn't seem to be one of them.

wrs

That said, I can't help mentioning some of Trump's well-known Twitter victims. He led the twitter bully mob against multiple FBI officials and government officials, and others he has considered a threat. These mobs were organized by the leader of our government. This seems much more dangerous and worry-worthy to me.

also check out how police and white supremacist gangs like to use Twitter to direct abuse towards protestors:

As researchers, we have tracked larger, coordinated cross-platform campaigns where white vigilante gangs are looking to identify counter-protesters with the intent to harm them. Sites run by known white supremacists, such as WeSearchR, feature bounties for identifying and tracking down people alleged to be communists, leftists and members of Antifa. Other websites used by the far-right to coordinate White Lives Matter Rallies and online harassment campaigns are already circulating the Berkeley Police’s tweets.

Some of those tweets have now been removed, nearly a week later, but the damage is done. Outlets like Fox News are publishing those mugshots in articles about the event. Perhaps the Berkeley Police Department doesn’t realize that the information it’s releasing will be misused. But in this case, releasing information about arrestees will cause them to be targeted by white vigilante mobs. This is not harm reduction, but harm amplification.

someone should tell Fox News about this!

This thread has turned into an argument with Grandpa Simpson yelling at a cloud.

get your own onion

I have long since embraced the fact that I have become Abe Simpson, yelling at clouds.

It's that, or yell at the dog, and I don't have a dog.

back to Bowie...

when that interview happened, a lot of people thought that hip-hop and rap weren't actually music. some still try to make that argument.

Well actually, rap is more poetry than actual music.

When you think about it, getting Americans e thused about poetry recitations/readings is quite the achievement. I knew people, in my several-decades-younger days, who attemped to emulate the medieval bards in that regard. But it was a very narrow demograpgic. The idea of its acquiring general popularity would never have occurred to me.

Well actually, rap is more poetry than actual music.

the video at that link didn't change your mind?

What exactly is Tutrning Point's "Professor Watch List," if not "cancel culture?"

byomtov - "professor watch list" and the FIRE databases aren't cancel culture because that term didn't exist when McCcarthyism was the rule, so they get grandfathered in as "individual liberty" or "fighting academic bias."

And even in the FIRE disinvitation database, 11 of 18 pages are complaints from the right (abortion, Marxism, criminal records, pro-palestinian activism, etc.)

And just you try scheduling a talk from Anita Sarkeesian on your campus.

Nope, the video didn't change my mind. I don't agree with Shapiro either, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not equating rap to normal speech, as the only alternative to music. I'm calling it poetry -- not the same thing at all.

nous: I tried. Apparently McCarthyism and its attendant blacklisting didn't make the cut as "cancel culture".

I'm calling it poetry -- not the same thing at all.

seems like there's more to it than just rhyming words with a strong rhythm, tho. doesn't the stuff in the background count for anything? plus, it's been a long, long time since rap was just a couple of guys spitting over a bare drum machine. actually singing the chorus (strong melody and all that) has been a standard feature since the early-90s. and rapping over someone else's music is where it all came from in the first place (disc jockeys stretching out song intros and breaks so they could do 'dedications' and shout-outs to their listeners).

Apparently McCarthyism and its attendant blacklisting didn't make the cut as "cancel culture".

well, sure. that's by definition. "cancel culture" is what lefties do.

Members of Trump's Republican Party campaign advance team in Tulsa test positive for bioterrorism:

https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/status/1274401799286513672

Their job is to case the joint in preparation, like all anti-American terrorist organizations and without interference from Homeland Security, for murdering American citizens by spreading the deadly disease and ready Tulsa's citizenry for the consequences of electing a murderous Republican Christian death cult, which believes I am part of a disposable herd and they shall be the raptured chosen.

What is ODD is fretting over cancel culture as this horror happens in real time on American soil.

I cannot continue.

I fully expect, if Trump is re-elected, or even before, I will be threatened with arrest and prosecution if I don't surrender myself to being infected with this virus. Conservative republican spreaders will hunt me down.

America is a nightmare. It is depraved.

Deliberately infect us with deadly diseases and withdraw from all treaties governing nuclear weaponry, global warming, and healthcare.

They are coming. They are here.

I've known this since I was a child. I saw them in my nightmares.

"cancel culture" is what lefties do.

Right. Whoever knew McKinney was an adherent of what you might call the Humpty Dumpty school of lexicography:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Lyric writing is poetry (or prosody in some cases). Performed without musical accompaniment it is slam poetry. But what a DJ does is music. Combine an MC with a DJ and you have music. Combine the lyrics with elements of melody and you have music.

Try on some DJ Shadow. Would you argue that this is poetry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InFbBlpDTfQ

DJ Shadow collaborates with many MCs. When he adds an MC to his track does it immediately become poetry?

What is the dividing line between André 3000s lyricism that renders him a poet, and Lou Reed's lyricism that renders him a musician?

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" reminded me of the conclusion of Applebaum’s recent piece.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/trumps-collaborators/612250/
In the meantime, I leave anyone who has the bad luck to be in public life at this moment with a final thought from Władysław Bartoszewski, who was a member of the wartime Polish underground, a prisoner of both the Nazis and the Stalinists, and then, finally, the foreign minister in two Polish democratic governments. Late in his life—he lived to be 93—he summed up the philosophy that had guided him through all of these tumultuous political changes. It was not idealism that drove him, or big ideas, he said. It was this: Warto być przyzwoitym—“Just try to be decent.” Whether you were decent—that’s what will be remembered.

It’s not an answer to addressing the endemic racism in our societies, but it is essential if we are to hold them together while we do.

"John Roberts is David Souter,” Newsweek’s conservative opinion editor, Josh Hammer, said Thursday."

Speaking of cancel culture. Originating from a conservative writing for a commie organ.

Remember when punk Erick Erickson canceled David Souter on social media?

What is ex-communication if not cancel culture among the Christian sects.

Shunned in this life and proclaimed tossed from God's Everlasting Kingdom.

Dreher does this trick daily.

Nigel, not only did I think that piece was excellent (as my long fight with Donald over it proved), but everyone I forwarded it to, from small-c conservative/moderate rightwingers, to fairly left/old Labour types, also thought it was really good. You didn't have to agree with all Applebaum's views of desirable foreign policy, to be impressed by her marshalling of some of the history, the facts about the Trump enablers, and the examples of collaboration in the 20th/21st century, to think it was an extremely valuable journalistic contribution to these times. And I still think that what she said about Mattis might have influenced his eventual speaking out. Thank you for originally pointing us towards it (I think I heard it first from you).

Well, getting back to normal I see. I'm still out of action for at least a week because of real life online committments, but I would highlight another point that strikes me when I read through this exchange.

McT leapt into the fray condemning 'woke culture' and 'SJW's, assuming that everyone already knows
1)which incidents he's referring to

and assuming that the incidents
a)went down the way he remembered them and
b)everyone here would automatically have an opposite view to them that he has.

This has the rest of us try to figure out which incidents he is talking about and then patiently trying to explain why McT may be
1)wrong about his view of the incident and/or
2)wrong about the way he automatically places them in this file drawer called 'the left'.

It reminds me of what Kurt Vonnegut said about being labeled as science fiction, he didn't mind being put in that drawer except for the fact that it was a drawer that people often peed in all the time.

I only come to this realization because this discussion has some examples that McT feels he is forced to address. (mirabile dictu!) Unsurprisngly, he doesn't think that Kaepernick and the Dixie Chicks count for much, but is more inclined to grant some thought to Russell's example, though on reflection, Russell's example is simply proof of what he (McT) said earlier about how he was against all of us who were demanding that MAGA hat wearers be dragged behind trucks. Or something like that.

It occurs to me that a lot of this back and forth could be avoided if McT simply started with the examples he had in mind. He might even give a link to refresh our memories. Maybe it's just me, but that might be a bit more productive. But then, it might not be as much fun. Though at some point, people may just stop biting at hooks.

Colorado Armed National Guard troops should be stationed at Denver International Airport, the bus and train stations, and at the border along major highway routes leading from the plague festival in Tulsa, Oklahoma and interdict by force all returning murderous republican Covid pilgrims as they deliberately smuggle in their deliberately acquired viral loads to infect and kill Coloradans.

Turn them away to at least quarantine under veterinary medical supervision at Tony Exotic's petting zoo with the rest of their herd. If they are traveling with children, take the kids into custodial medical care until the parents' irresponsibility can be adjudicated in the Courts and adoptive parents can be found.

If they resist, go Blue Lives Matter all over them.

We aren't going to make to the election:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-denies-involvement-in-berman-ouster-right-after-barr-told-berman-potus-fired-him

What is going to happen to Bolsanaro in Brazil over the next six months as that country cracks opens and goes up in chaotic vengeful flames will be a dress rehearsal for America.

I'm holding on to McKinney's statement that if Ted Cruz burst into flames, he (McKinney) wouldn't put the flames out with raw sewage.

As exculpatory evidence proving kindred basic human decency.

that Applebaum piece just makes me sad

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/federal-employee-put-leave-confronting-teen-girls-disturbing/story?id=71363530

Turns out there is a Deep State.

It is republican, racist, and conducts cancellations in person.

No, John Thullen, you don't understand. The real cancel culture villains here are the media for putting the poor man's job in jeopardy. I mean implications of racism are the absolute worst thing that anyone can ever suffer.

that Applebaum piece just makes me sad

Why, cleek? My bias assumes it's because you are sad to see what regimes the US is being compared to, and how degraded and contaminated so many people are from their contact with the Trump administration, but I'm very possibly wrong about your reasons. Would you be willing to expand on them a bit?

implications of racism are the absolute worst thing that anyone can ever suffer.

Ha! From what I'm seeing, there are a fair number who embrace the implication. They object to the word, but don't appear to have the least objection to the characteristics. Or to other people knowing they have them -- proud seems to be closer to their outlook. Pretty appalled.

So Trump has suggested that flag burners spend a year in jail. But hey, it's the left who wants too stifle free expression.

So Trump has suggested that flag burners spend a year in jail.

His rally was pathetic. Too bad he's also killing people with his sad ranting. I wish we could return to the days when this kind of "thought process" belonged to the crazy uncle.

One has to maintain perspective in this time of madness. Please keep in mind that the McKinneys of this world would enthusiastically support a more polished GOP President, Congress, and Supreme Court that did the following, just like Trump is doing:

Destroyed unions.
Blunted action to fight global warming.
Did virtually nothing about institutional racism.
Pretty much abolish the EPA and take our economic relationships back to the Gilded Age.
Enforce the notion that money is speech, because, well, they have all the money.
Put children in cages.
Suppress the vote of those inclined to have different political views than they do (THIS IS THE REAL CANCEL CULTURE, FOLKS).
Work incessantly to promote the political advantages of those small numbers of people living in rural areas in order to maintain political power.
Castigate their political opposition as "the other".
Use the concept of judicial "originalism" to hand down shamelessly activist court decisions.
Lie, cheat, and steal as a matter of course.
Worship at the feet of concentrated corporate and financial power.

People are people, my friends. Smash them.

His rally was pathetic.

lol. A finely polished turd it eas.

was

no more wine tonight, bobby.

Ha! From what I'm seeing, there are a fair number who embrace the implication. They object to the word, but don't appear to have the least objection to the characteristics. Or to other people knowing they have them -- proud seems to be closer to their outlook. Pretty appalled.

That perfectly fits Austrian anti-semitism post-WW2. "I am not an anti-semite. I just can't stand Jews." Followed usually by charges of intolerance against the people who simply can't see that there is not the faintest connection between anti-semitism and just hating Jews.

Russell's Restaurant Owner Friend--this is closer to the CC culture but still not on point.

Haha, somehow I missed this one. I somehow forgot that any counter-examples had to be things that happened on a Tuesday afternoon, in July, via a Twitter account using a handle beginning with the letter 'a'.

Remind me to not bother next time something like this comes up. Life's too short to spend time jumping through the increasingly tiny hoops McK throws out there to avoid addressing the substance of any given issue.

Freaking lawyers.

apropos, from Applebaum

The same former administration official who observed the importance of apocalyptic Christianity in Trump’s Washington also told me, with grim disgust, that “they are all scared.”

They are scared not of prison, the official said, but of being attacked by Trump on Twitter. They are scared he will make up a nickname for them. They are scared that they will be mocked, or embarrassed, like Mitt Romney has been. They are scared of losing their social circles, of being disinvited to parties. They are scared that their friends and supporters, and especially their donors, will desert them. John Bolton has his own super PAC and a lot of plans for how he wants to use it; no wonder he resisted testifying against Trump. Former Speaker Paul Ryan is among the dozens of House Republicans who have left Congress since the beginning of this administration, in one of the most striking personnel turnovers in congressional history. They left because they hated what Trump was doing to their party—and the country. Yet even after they left, they did not speak out.


Would you be willing to expand on them a bit?

it's a compelling illustration of how stupid, short-sighted and venal humans are.

Life's too short to spend time jumping through the increasingly tiny hoops McK throws out there to avoid addressing the substance of any given issue.

Not only that, he affirmatively supports cancelations as long as the right people are being canceled (Dixie Chicks, Kaepernick).

Kind of amazing that the guy who worked himself into hysterics over cancel culture - literally as bad as lynching! compulsory woke oaths! - is the only person on this thread supporting specific cancelations.

it's a compelling illustration of how stupid, short-sighted and venal humans are.

Very true. Thanks, cleek.

compulsory woke oaths!

so, a bit on the origins of the word 'woke'.

it was first used in 1962, in a NYT essay, William Melvin Kelley, "If You're Woke You Dig It". but it didn't really catch on.

it really took off when Erykah Badu used it in her 2008 song Master Teacher. the lyrics are a bit of call/response thing, and "I stay woke" (sung by Georgia Anne Muldrow) is always the response. Badu and Muldrow often get credit for inventing it, but they just popularized it.

i first heard that song in 2012. because i didn't know what she was saying, i looked up the words. then i didn't know what she meant by 'woke'; though i could get the basic idea from context, i didn't know for sure. i tried looking it up, but at the time there was literally nothing on the internet about it.

and now it's the right's new favorite insult.

because, again: nothing is quite as "2020 conservative" as seething prejudice against someone who cares about racial and social justice.

Rule: If we stop testing for examples of cancel culture in our own experiences, we'll have less cancel culture and the whole thing will go away.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-says-he-asked-administration-to-slow-the-testing-downon-coronavirus

This is why Genghis Khan is the undisputed (well, if it's undisputed, what's all the fighting about?) champion of genocide and Mao, Hitler, Stalin, the Generals of World War I, and the Las Vegas shooter have mere asterisks next to their statistical contributions to the genre in the Baseball Genocide Body Count Record Book.

I think the Las Vegas shooter could have been one of the great ones myself, in sheer numbers over the shortest amount of time, but we had to stop counting after law enforcement moved in and cut his career short.

Certainly, there was, and is, enough stockpiled ammo in America to let his table run, but he was making Dylan Roof look bad by comparison, so Ixnay the Aughterslay.

We see a similar peculiar "logic" applied to the death toll from Corona-19: Hey, we don't lift an eyebrow over 35,000 annual deaths by automobile, or the 30,000 annual deaths by gun, or the 50,000 annual death toll from the regular everyday flu, so why the excitement over this Covid-19 hoax? Besides, it culls the heard of the infirm and the rest of us should be OK, although out some Kleenex and Tylenol, I'll have you bloody well know.

Then, some busybody bleeding heart in the back row raises a tentative hand, and through her face mask suggests various measures to lower or ameliorate the suffering body counts in all of the categories above, including the pandemic, and the usual suspects wave her off by saying, "Yes, yes, well alright, I'll give you the aqueducts, but think of the cost to our freedoms .. er I mean, taxes, of all of that rigmarole! Better to let sleeping dog lie, with maybe a knee on their windpipes so we don't encourage them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ozEZxOsanY

Regarding Applebaum, Trump and Bolton will hang side by side, split screened with Victor Orban's execution (the latter has now approved of teh EU's ... and Soros' .. plan to bail him out economically) but Ryan, that clever get, has sneaked through the back door again, this time unelected, and family in tow this time as he drops all pretense, except for the batting of his baby blues at prospective victims, and is living high in his hated Washington D.C as he awaits his next turn at carrying out the ruination of Social Security and Medicare following the detailed instructions laid out in his genocide manual, "Genghis Shrugged" (Or: How Did Dagny Taggart's High Heel Imprints Get All Over These Corpses?").

Ryan is Evil like Satan in the Old Testament ... or like Dickens' slithering, oily Uriah Heep ... patiently and unctuously awaiting his opportunity, ingratiating, and oddly, hoveringly charming.

I can feel my own brand of venality rising like a gorge so back to lurking for awhile.

"herd", or so I hear.

Remind me to not bother next time something like this comes up.

If I could figure out a way to code it above the comment box, I would.

An article that touches both on an aspect of racism in America and cancel culture.

"We quickly discovered that if you’re the white parents of an adopted black child, and you’re in the public eye at all, men and women will viciously criticize you for having the audacity to believe that you can raise your kid. At times, the criticism was direct and personal—most of it directed at my wife. It was one thing to face hostile comments on blogs or random tweets. It was another to face angry direct messages and sometimes-tense personal encounters in public. Family and friends were aghast. Look at what the left does and says to loving families, we remarked to one another. Look at what they believe about faithful Christians.

Then, sometime around the summer of 2015, we began to notice a shift. The attacks on our family came less and less from the left, and increasingly from the so-called alt-right—a vicious movement of Trump-supporting white nationalists who loathe multiracial families. They despise international adoption. They call it “race-cucking your family” or “raising the enemy.” Heaven help you if they find you online, and find us they did. In part because I criticized their movement directly—and in part because I refused to support Donald Trump in 2016—they came after us with a vengeance."
America Soured on My Multiracial Family: When my wife and I adopted our daughter from Ethiopia in 2010, we did so full of hope. In the years since, we’ve faced ugliness that has robbed us of our optimism—and left us fearful for the future of our country.

Remind me to not bother next time something like this comes up.

I'd rather not leave this as my last word in this thread, it's stated more harshly than I'd like.

I appreciate McK's participation here and appreciate the perspective he brings.

I understand that narrowing the topic of conversation to the point that only the aspects of the answer you wish to address are 'relevant', and so that only the answers you wish to elicit are appropriate, is common lawyerly practice.

But this isn't a courtroom, and the net effect of applying that technique to a context like this ends up feeling like argument in bad faith.

Which is frustrating.

Drawing distinctions like "yes, your friend lost her life savings, her business, and her home, all due to harassment over a political opinion not even expressed by her, but she's self-employed, so that doesn't count" is not really a good faith argument when the overall topic is people using social media to make other's people's lives miserable.

I'm pretty sure the average, unbiased reader would agree.

Make of it what you will.

I understand that narrowing the topic of conversation to the point that only the aspects of the answer you wish to address are 'relevant', and so that only the answers you wish to elicit are appropriate, is common lawyerly practice.

Just want to clarify what "relevance" is in a courtroom:

It's not about technique or legal shenanigans. In a legal case, there are certain factual and legal issues that are set to be decided by a judge or jury. Allowing witnesses or lawyers to bloviate about whatever they're interested in doesn't shed light on the matters (sometimes very technical) to be considered. For example, the Federal Rules of Evidence require that evidence meet a relevancy requirement. It's essential in a courtroom to speak to the issues being litigated.

McKinney is not in a courtroom, and his objections as to relevance aren't relevant to this forum. I'm sure he knows that, and isn't trying to be lawyerly (because he's not being lawyerly). He just seems to believe that his examples are the only ones that count.

Charles, whomever goes after adoptive parents, from whatever political or religious perspective or whatever motivation, is depraved.

Maybe Americans aren't so entitled to their loathsome opinions as they seem to believe.

Maybe a plurality of us are merely becoming depraved judgmental assholes and believe some markings on a piece of paper, the Constitution, and/or the Bible, entitle us to voice our judgement unbidded and without license or censure, and social media, with its anonymous practitioners has merely amplified a tendency that used to be confined to small-town gossips, mean 13-year-olds in heat, and crazy uncles with a snootful and their flies undone.

We're lucky the Constitution didn't spell out a right to yell fire in a crowded theater (Americans seem to think having a crowd assembled with unmarked exits when they yell "Fire!" is exactly the point) and the right to public urination, because political parties would run campaigns scourging any gummint regulation of such practices and proclaiming those rights' derivations from almighty God.

I'm guilty as charged, (I should talk, and the fact that I do is in fact the problem) which is why I plan to start a petition to name and enforce the entire calendar year of 2021, National Shut the [email protected] Up Year.

We'll call it the Citizens Silenced case. A national vow of silence, silently vowed. It will be illegal for the Supreme Court to even write opinions about it, because who cares what they think.

If it goes well, we'll make it permanent.

All future "listening tours" will turn up nothing but crickets. No longer will we have to hear some patronizing get tell us "I hear what you are saying", because "saying" on either end will be verboten.

Maybe next we'll go after the stink eye, the side eye, leers, and dirty looks.

And by the way, money, the loudest voice in the room, shuts up too.

Got an opinion? Stow it. No more calls for comment.

Monastery rules. A bell for matins and that's it.

So say what we have to say now and get it off our chests.

We've got a little more than six months to shut our traps.

Loophole: If you wish to speak or otherwise express yourself and give an opinion, you have to sing it acapella, and it had better be in tune.

You have to lurk in tune as well. I'm going to practice.

https://www.change.org/p/philadelphia-replace-the-columbus-statue-with-iverson-stepping-over-tyron-lue/psf/share?source_location=combo_psf&psf_variant=combo&share_intent=1

I just signed this. My reasons are as follows—

1. If he finds out about it, it would upset Rod Dreher.

2. If he finds out about it, Rod will write another hysterical screed about how these modern day iconoclasts are a harbinger of the soft totalitarianism that will destroy civilization. He will quote another five paragraphs from his upcoming book linking this to Eastern European communism, because, really, what isn’t related to Eastern European communism?

This will amuse me.

3. If the statue goes up, rightwing iconoclasts can get their revenge by toppling it. I won’t care. It will keep them out of trouble.

Link didn’t go to the petition. Maybe this one will —

https://www.change.org/p/philadelphia-replace-the-columbus-statue-with-iverson-stepping-over-tyron-lue

He just seems to believe that his examples are the only ones that count.

Does he argue like that because he's a lawyer? Or did he become a lawyer because he argues like that? No idea...

btw I enthusiastically support the petition Donald put up. I'd add a 4th reason, cause I'm getting sick of reading about Michael Jordan.

Michael Jordan, Conan the Barbarian of the NBA...

I actually have mixed feelings about statue toppling, but Dreher is being such a melodramatic twit. His view is that Jefferson and other slaveowners are complicated figures, which is fair, but leftist statue topplers are pure evil. There seems to be a bias there somewhere.

Columbus, though, was considered brutal even by the standards of his time, or so I have read. Put up a statue of Bartolome de Las Casas ( sp?).

Or Iverson. Or both.

Hungary collected many of its Soviet-era statues into a weird park with creepy music playing...

Orban's statue will join them soon.

Donald, your characterization of Dreher is exactly as mine, but more on point.

I'd rather not leave this as my last word in this thread, it's stated more harshly than I'd like.

I appreciate McK's participation here and appreciate the perspective he brings.

First, thanks for this and second, let my try to show why I draw the distinctions I do and you can decide whether they make sense.

What is 'cancelling' in this context? Is it any form of rejection, a concept so broad and amorphous that it has no meaning or can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean at whatever time and under whatever circumstances?

Most of my examples--all I think--involve either a private citizen or a historical/dead person, neither of whom can speak for themselves. The 'Canceler's' demand that a third person either take some action against the Cancelee or that we all acquiesce in their act of cancellation.

Put differently, a group decides to take action against a person using that person's employer or others to inflict harm on that person.

I distinguish 'cancellation' from most other forms of rejection because, as free individuals, we each have the right to disagree, to reject, to agree, to accept or any combination thereof pretty much anything life throws at us that isn't a legal obligation. This is particularly true of political and policy matters.

When someone puts themselves or their beliefs on public display, they are inviting judgment. They most likely prefer acceptance, or tolerance, or what have you, but the act of putting it out there invites the full range of response. For example, Tucker Carlson is not being cancelled in my view because people are asking his sponsors to pull their support. He gets his sponsors by being popular. He loses his sponsors by pissing off too many people in a bad way. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.

Kaepernick put it out there and got smacked. Too bad. I am not obliged to accept his viewpoint or the way he chose to express it. I'm not cancelling him. I'm exercising my right to ignore him.

For the many here who disagree with me, none of you are cancelling me. Disagreeing, personalizing the discussion, what have you, is not cancellation. It's disagreement. Some do it better than others.

An act of cancellation would be to try to influence others to disassociate from me.

Your restaurant owner friend was judged, unfairly obviously, by her daughter's behavior and, as far as I can tell, that judgment was manifested by folks no long patronizing her restaurant. Shitty, but no different than a person deciding to go to her restaurant because of admiration for the daughter's position. Why do so many businesses hang American flags wherever they can? Want to go out of business? Hang a flag upside down or put up a sign that says "police officers not welcome". If you offer a public service, as I said previously, keep your political and religious views to yourself.

Many of the lawyers who work for me are politically active in one party or the other. They all understand the line between attending meetings, getting out the vote, putting out yard signs and making statements that are objectively divisive.

A very close cousin, if not a sibling, to CC is straight up online bullying. The same peeps who like CC like to bully as well.

This all got started with the question of cultural appropriation--again, an artifact of some subset of the Woke left (no offense intended, just as I'm sure no one intends to insult me when they refer to conservatives)--about which I expressed my views and then made the further, logical in my view, observation that accusations of cultural appropriation are often the basis for instituting a cancellation campaign.

I'm not a fan of bullies or ganging up or hounding people into submission. I'm perfectly fine--as my twelve plus years here at ObWi should prove--going toe to toe on whatever issues catches my attention at a point when I have the time to engage.

Donald--I'm not down with statue toppling of any kind. If a statue needs to come down, it should be done legally and by a vote. Otherwise, it's criminal vandalism. Just because the vandal's views line up with yours or mine doesn't change the criminality of the act.

LJ, I think you'll find a link at my 6/20, 9:55 comment. Assuming you've read this far.

Russell, again, thanks. Nicely done and much appreciated.

Columbus, though, was considered brutal even by the standards of his time, or so I have read.

Not to mention delusional about the size of the world, which was well know by his day. Although, for some, I suppose a willingness to simply ignore inconvenient details about reality would be considered a plus. Make him part of the chior, as it were.

“ I'm not down with statue toppling of any kind. If a statue needs to come down, it should be done legally and by a vote”

I tend to agree with this, but also wonder if completely legal protests always get the attention they should. If people are going to break the law while protesting, statue toppling seems like the most innocuous form.

Though on the third hand ( or gripping hand, to use the old Pournelle Niven analogy) I find the Dreher hysteria completely over the top and borderline ugly. I actually like Dreher when he is at his best ( which might be one post in 20) but right now he is in the midst of a moral panic-plus he has a book to sell. I might like him a bit better than John does, because I do learn a few things I don’t learn from reading lefty sources. I heard about the Washington Post cancel culture story from Dreher. I thought it was disgusting. And occasionally Dreher really tries to rise above his own biases, which is rare for anyone. He can be very self critical. But right now he is wallowing in his worst tendencies.

So I reluctantly concede that statue toppling is a bad idea, but it should be criticized the way you did it— it breaks the law. Dreher goes well beyond that. He is pitching the SJW left as the second coming of the totalitarian left, pure evil. But he thinks we should be nuanced in our judgments of slaveowners and brutal police. I don’t respect this.

I also don’t like cancel culture. I am not sure how bad a problem it is. As others have pointed out, every part of the political spectrum does this. Heck, I see it within the left and not just leftists vs centrist libs, but much more fine grained. I can think of at least five groups of people on tge Twitter left which hate each other. Maybe more if I thought about it longer.

A very close cousin, if not a sibling, to CC is straight up online bullying. The same peeps who like CC like to bully as well.

An interesting related phenomenon is that probably the most common incidence of online bullying is done by misogynist men against women who have the temerity to raise their heads above the parapet in any way whatsoever. I would never claim that there are no lefty misogynists, but since feminism is a foundational doctrine of the "woke" left, I would guess that the extreme misogynist abuse many public women face (rape, murder and mutilation threats for example) is more likely to come from the right than the left. It would be interesting to know if any research has been done into this, cross-referencing for example stated political affiliations online with misogynist abuse.

McT, I have a comment at (according to my view) June 20, 2020 at 05:04 PM that begins with

Well, getting back to normal I see.

Now it is possible that the time markers are adjusted for time zones, so if I missed a comment of yours that came _before_ my comment, you are welcome to point it out to me.

But I actually don't find any link in _any_ of your comments. I don't know if you think you actually posted a link or if this is a Dominic Cummings move. I would like to think that you are just confused, but I'm not really sure. As you wrote:
I'm old, near retirement, so fear of giving PC offense doesn't play a role in my social calculus.
I'm not sure why this is something that one should be proud of, but I'm in Japan, and from the news I read, your approach certainly seems to becoming the norm in the US.

I did go back to your first comment in this thread because you say above

This all got started with the question of cultural appropriation--again, an artifact of some subset of the Woke left (no offense intended, just as I'm sure no one intends to insult me when they refer to conservatives)

Here's the close of your first comment in this thread
So, for me, like most of the other SJW/Woke devices for short-cutting substantive discussion or casting out (cancelling) the heretics, "cultural appropriation" is 99% BS.

Perhaps your most recent formulation is how you remember it, but the words on the screen say something different. 'I'm not intending to give offense, I'm just old' is not how I read that. Others can tell me if I'm wrong.

But my feeling is that if you put up a comment like that, it is, as Aussies like to say, playing the shit-stirrer. If that's the role you want to play here, that's your decision. Perhaps you are thinking that you are adding some deep understanding that we have never even considered (like 'gee, don't you think that things could go to far?'), but I'm pretty sure that people here have considered, especially since they responded with a wealth of examples, a lot of the ramifications and problems. Engage with that, and I'm here all day.

But looking at this thread, it is a typical McT shitshow. I don't speak for anyone else here, but I don't appreciate it and lately, I've feel that I've reached a point where I don't really care if it hurts your feelings or not. It's not age, it's just fed up-ness.

You are responsible for how you argue. If you don't want to, or can't change, that's your problem, not mine. I would, however, point out that it will probably give people the impression that Russell got when he wrote this.
But this isn't a courtroom, and the net effect of applying that technique to a context like this ends up feeling like argument in bad faith.


“ He is pitching the SJW left as the second coming of the totalitarian left, pure evil. But he thinks we should be nuanced in our judgments of slaveowners and brutal police. I don’t respect this.”

Clarifying— I don’t respect being nuanced towards slaveowners while demonizing the SJW crowd.

My grandfather, in Middletown, Ohio, had a lawn jockey lighting the way on the sidewalks leading to the driveways at both of his homes.

When I was little, it was part of the scenery.

When I was in late high school and college (it was there until the house was sold after my grandmother died years later), I gave it a wide berth and was embarrassed by it.

I didn't tear it down but I remember mentioning to my mother couldn't we maybe put it at the back of the garage at least.

I don't know what became of it, whether it was sold with the house or somehow went in the estate sale.

I think the Confederate statues and Columbus-type statues should be removed, but legally as McKinney stipulates. Place them in a park or museum of their own. I would visit them in the same vein as I visited the Torture Museum in Amsterdam, with disgust and contempt.

Man's inhumanity to man should not be veiled.

Especially from the aerial judgement of pigeons.

On the other hand, I get the overdo urge to tear these things down. In the case of the Confederate statuary, they should not have been erected in the first place, because we know why they were.

If you read about the horrific slaughter of, in particular, black union soldiers, but white Union soldiers as well by Confederate troops led by Nathan Bedford Forrest at the Battle of Fort Pillow, Tennessee, if his statue near Nashville hasn't been toppled yet, I'm game for driving down there with chains and a four by four with a hitch to knock that sucker over.

Does Cambodia have statues erected of Pol Pot in front of every optometrist's store?

The Confederate statues are to African Americans what Saddam's statuary was to Iraqi Shi'as.

Statues in America have been toppled before, by our heroes, and for such quintessentially American practical reasons .. to be melted down to make bullets.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/the-history-behind-the-king-george-iii-statue-meme/

Remember, the Confederacy didn't even wait to tear down Lincoln's statue. They murdered the flesh and blood item.

Give him time. Trump will topple the Statue of Liberty, and the confederate statue lovers late of the pathetic Tulsa rally will cheer like drunken louts.

lj, FWIW, I searched McKinney's link and did actually find it, from recollection quite far above his comment, and so you might have missed it. And again, and FWIW, I think far from saying "I don't intend to give offense, I'm just old" is not remotely what he's saying, he's saying he's old so he doesn't give a fuck if he causes PC offense (although you're right that he specifies that his formulation "the Woke left" is not intended to be offensive, comparing it to the ObWi commentariat using the term "conservatives", which is rather funny given his history of extraordinary rants against it).

Dreher dismissed Applebaum's article that has been cited here.

He rationalizes Orban's authoritarian crackdown and makes not a peep of the anti-Semitism Applebaum witnessed in Hungary.

That said, I read a lot of the books Dreher mentions, but more as I would pillage an enemy's weapons cache, to use it against them.

And Dreher is maddeningly forthright. He drags Trump over the coals, but then like a post-Weimar half-hearted gauleiter with doubts, he flirtatiously refuses to NOT vote for the lout .... because the transgenders.

Most of all, I hate the way he quotes himself at length. It is twittish and self-serving.

Hit the bookstores, Rod, and sell yer book.

He's a searcher for pure orthodoxy in a liquid modern world. As if HE is the first. Caves are filled with those raving types.

I'm one of them, especially regarding the forcibly mandated designated hitter rule in baseball.

He's like God in the Garden of Eden. Who is eating my tempting apples, my pretties?

His latest screed (book to be released this Fall) compares what he calls America's soft totalitarianism to Soviet Russia's worst inhumanities.

Think about that.

Give me a break.

Putin agrees with him, and with many of Dreher's commentariat as well. Pussy Riot does not fair well either in Putin's Russia or Dreher's Benedict option.

The surveillance alone in the Option communities to interdict gay fumbling about will be formidable.

Talk about Cancel Culture.

I could have a beer, which he drinks, with him, once I got over the fear of him disapproving of my beer drinking, because you never know.

Maybe he drinks beer available only from orthodox monasteries and think of the censorious silences.

I'm sure there's a statue of Jeff Davis that should be replaced by one of Sherman.

But, since I am such a very bad person (as if you didn't already know that), I'd make sure that there's a high-pressure gas cylinder inside the statue of Sherman, so that when the crackers topple it, they break off the valve.

High velocity hilarity ensues. Sherman would approve.

"fare", not "fair" Pay it.

McT,

"wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when someone disrespects our flag to say, 'get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He's fired. He's fired."

Cancel culture, or not?

I'm just noting here that McKinneyTexas' delineation of "cancel culture" is not what most people or the media mean when they talk about cancel culture, and is much more akin to doxxing.

CharlesWT's WaPo story feeds into this somewhat as well.

Pretty much every example raised in response and dismissed, meanwhile, is in line with what is meant by "cancel culture" in the vast majority of references to it.

Different choirs being preached to.

The Nashville statue of Forrest is on private property but right next to the interstate. In non pandemic years I visit twice a year and we pass it going to and from the airport. (I mostly grew up in Memphis, but much of the family moved to Nashville after I left).

The thing is so laughably hideous it deserves to stay up. Photos don’t do it justice. It is exactly the monument that Forrest deserves.

“ , I hate the way he quotes himself at length.”

I skip them. For all I know, he might be citing the same piece every time.

You'd better call Nashville, Donald.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/business/media/the-tennessean-islam-ad.html

If we take the right wing crypto-religious lunatics at their lunatic word regarding the biased malfeasance of the "mainstream" media, then it's been three days since Nashville was turned to glass by the Muslim world and why oh why haven't the mainstream media reported this Holocaust.

I fully expect Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo, in a frenzy of Revelationary ejaculation, to rise into the clouds as they announce the nuking of Tehran to retaliate for the nuking of Nashville three days ago.

Can anyone here prove at this moment that Nashville has NOT been nuked?

See.. they could be right.

We'll be presented photoshopped footage of Donald Trump himself stomping up and down like Slim Pickens on a nuclear bomb lodged in the bomb bay cavity of a US bomber jet, bomb bay doors open, a green screen of Iranian territory below, as he drinks a glass of water with one hand and shouts that he has nothing to do with ordering the bombing.

He knows nothing.

The Nashville paper's publishers explained they have no idea how the full page ad slipped by it editorial/ advertising procedures.

I guess this working from home thing has severe holes in it.

The Ministry of Future America is attempting to spark a worldwide nuclear war, the better to speed along Biblical Prophecy and their Christian death cult.

Arrest them, cancel them, and execute them.

The mainstream media is now mere social media.

Nothing can be trusted in lunatic America.



but since feminism is a foundational doctrine of the "woke" left, I would guess that the extreme misogynist abuse many public women face (rape, murder and mutilation threats for example) is more likely to come from the right than the left. It would be interesting to know if any research has been done into this, cross-referencing for example stated political affiliations online with misogynist abuse.

An interesting take. Mine is that right/left is irrelevant (or perhaps secondary or some other attenuation descriptor) to the psychological make-up of men who attack women. It's an illness. I'm not online other than here except for the different magazines I read, so I'm not clued into what a lot of the day-in-day-out stuff consists of. I'm assuming there is an almost infinite range of cruelty that is an inevitable result of so many millions enjoying the comfort of anonymity.

He is pitching the SJW left as the second coming of the totalitarian left, pure evil. But he thinks we should be nuanced in our judgments of slaveowners and brutal police. I don’t respect this.

There are elements of the SJW left that are pretty authoritarian. Or, there are leftist authoritarians who are masking themselves as part of the SJW left. The SJW and brutal police are here, today, alive and doing whatever they do. I judge them by today's standards. Slave owners today would be human traffickers. Capital punishment is fine by me for human traffickers.

I've spent decades trying to be inside the head of someone who could stand to own another person. I can't do it. Yet, pretty much the entire world did it for thousands of years. Some still do it in some parts of the world.

Even if Jefferson was and is the world's biggest hypocrite, many of his writings merit independent review and analysis. Even if what he said was in marked contrast to what he did, what he said was, in many instances, truly inspired--but only if applied universally.

GFTNC, first: thanks for the review of my comments and your statements regarding same.

Second, I would like to address this:

(although you're right that he specifies that his formulation "the Woke left" is not intended to be offensive, comparing it to the ObWi commentariat using the term "conservatives", which is rather funny given his history of extraordinary rants against it)

I'm pretty sure one doesn't have to look long and hard to find a rant or two here about conservatives. That said, I plead guilty to being in stark disagreement with most of the Woke Left's take on issues of the day.

Cancel culture, or not?

Not in my view for the same reasons that I don't think Kaepernick's situation or Tucker Carlson's sponsors yanking their support are CC. A public statement--particularly a public statement while someone is doing their job--that invites judgement will get exactly what it invites: judgment.

(I mostly grew up in Memphis, but much of the family moved to Nashville after I left).

LOL. I spent two years in Millington. When did you graduate from HS?

The thing is so laughably hideous it deserves to stay up. Photos don’t do it justice. It is exactly the monument that Forrest deserves.

So, in thinking about the statue thing, one piece of this discussion that may be problematic is renaming army bases that millions of men and women who have no idea who Bragg, Benning or Hood were spent very important, intense, life-changing months and years at these locations. Places are not statues. We have the Davis mountains in Texas. That's how they are known. Jefferson County will always be Jefferson County. Corpus Christi (the Body of Christ) will always be Corpus Christi.

Statues, yes, that should be looked at. Places, not so much? They are too much a part of too many people's histories.

This brings me to LJ. Let me try to be concise: you don't seem to really have much nice to say to any of the conservatives who comment here. Sorry, but that's my take on it. Further, I have no recollection of you ever engaging substantively with any of the conservative views I or others have laid out. My general sense is that you typically, if not consistently, default to personal attacks, ad hominem and--to me--strange bouts of stylistic criticisms. I wouldn't bring any of this up but for your two most recent comments directed to me. But for those comments, I would ignore you except when, as you did with the White Fragility lecture, you put something out there that peaks my interest--at which time I engage. That you don't like me or what I have to say or whatever else your issue with me is, quite frankly, I don't care.

A public statement--particularly a public statement while someone is doing their job--that invites judgement will get exactly what it invites: judgment.

There is a public statement required when the National Anthem is played. Kaepernick refused to make that public statement an empty gesture (or one he disagreed with). Yes, this occurred during a time when he was on duty with "his job." But does one's job require one to make political gestures that one disagrees with? He made a gesture that reflected his own views, and not the views of the NFL. It certainly seems wrong to me to punish him for that. Whatever your definition of "cancel culture" is, it seems very wrong for private corporations to force people to embrace symbols of nationalism that they don't believe in.

McK, no worries, thanks for the explanation, and back atcha.

Regarding statues, I figure it depends. On who the statue is of, on whether the people who live in its vicinity want it there, on why it was there in the first place, on lots of factors.

I am personally not against civil disobedience, which not infrequently involves breaking the law. It's as American a tradition as any other. So that colors my POV.

Someday, maybe, this country will come to an understanding of exactly what the Confederacy was about, and we'll all just take the freaking statues down without further ado.

They aren't value-neutral artifacts. Not now, and not when they were erected.

But does one's job require one to make political gestures that one disagrees with? He made a gesture that reflected his own views, and not the views of the NFL.

Ok, let's leave aside the fact that every NFL game played in my lifetime starts with the National Anthem, which--I am comfortable projecting--is viewed by the overwhelming majority of ticket-purchasing fans as a symbol of American unity and shared experience. And, that dissing the Anthem and the flag does not sit well with vast majority of ticket-purchasing fans who, ultimately paid CK's not insubstantial salary. I'm also very comfortable with that broad statement.

So, let's leave aside that CK knew what he was getting into when he signed on for millions of bucks, knew who his employer's customer base was/is and knew that the games started with the Anthem.

Leave all of that aside.

As of this year, June 19th is a paid holiday at my firm. Suppose one of my white attorneys sent an all-firm email explaining that he thinks our policy is a surrender to BLM--whose agenda he thinks is 100% opportunistic BS--and he resents being made an involuntary part of this cop-out (no pun intended). That's a political statement, on the job, that is going to hit different people differently. I'm pretty sure our African American attorneys and staff would not like it. But, it wouldn't matter if each of them came to me and said, "he's a jerk, but we already knew that so don't do anything drastic", I would still chop his ass in a heartbeat. And I have a lot of issues with a lot of the BLM agenda once you get past the part about objecting to police killing unarmed black men who are handcuffed and on the ground, completely compliant and a too-widespread problem with law enforcement, crime and punishment in general when it comes to black people. What common ground the BLM leadership and I have is a lot smaller than the uncommon ground. Nonetheless, I am not going to allow a work environment where anyone is subject to being marginalized by an opinionated asshole, even if I myself am an opinionated asshole, I don't force my views on others except, of course, here.

Or, suppose a white football player, while CK or someone helse is kneeling, holds up a poster behind the kneeling player that says "BLM is BS!" Does he keep his job? why is his statement any different than CK's?

What about high school and college students who don't like mandatory workshops on multiculturalism and decid to say, clearly and bluntly: multiculturalism is BS!

Protected speech or grounds for expulsion?

In my view, anyone can say pretty much whatever they want short of fighting words or shouting fire in a crowded theater or other truly outrageous speech at the very edge of imaginable human communication. In fact, I want the true, unregenerate assholes in our society to speak up so that we know who the hell we are dealing with. Give them a soap box and record their every word, IMO.

Last example: I'm assuming you've appeared in Federal court at some point. Every session begins with "God save this honorable court and these United States" or words to that effect. Every lawyer in the courtroom dutifully bows their head during this process. If a lawyer is in Federal court, it's a 99% certainty that he/she is there for a client. Now, it is a certainty that on any given day, with 20 or 30 lawyers waiting their turn on the docket, that at least one is not personally down with the idea of God or a supreme being or anything like that.

If one of those lawyers was on my payroll taking care of one of our clients and my lawyer decided to pop off about not liking the invocation and not agreeing with it, I would probably give that lawyer one final warning and if it repeated, I would fire him. If the lawyer so infuriated the judge--possible but not likely, the judge would more likely think my lawyer was an idiot--that our client took an un-fixable hit on a ruling, I'd march that lawyer out the door personally.

So, deferring one's political agenda for a time when one is not hitting his/her employer or client in the pocket book is not an undue imposition in my book. He does not have to play professional football and make millions of dollars. He can stand there and think about whatever while everyone else is singing and waiting for the game to start.


I am personally not against civil disobedience, which not infrequently involves breaking the law.

I agree subject to time, location and extent of disobedience. I'm not down with blocking traffic. It's dramatic, but it screws with too many people's lives, including people riding in ambulances. I'm not down with property destruction. I'm damn sure not down with hurting other people or even frightening other people.

Re: place names vs. statues.

Denali isn't just a dyslexic river in Egypt, y'know?

Prominent baseball fan George Will once wrote that his young son understood the final stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner to be

O'er the land of the free
And the home of the brave play ball
which doesn't quite rise to an appreciation of American unity and shared experience. Granted, Will could have made it up; granted he was talking about a little kid anyway; nevertheless, I suggest that for some substantial fraction of sports fans, the National Anthem ritual is more something to get over with and get to the game already than it is a meaningful moment to be savored.

But let's leave all that aside, as McKinney urges. I'm more interested at the moment in McKinney's assessment of Barr firing the US Attorney for the SDNY.

--TP

I'm more interested at the moment in McKinney's assessment of Barr firing the US Attorney for the SDNY.

Amen

Certainly from the non-lawyer outside the optics, with the Tulsa rally less than a triumph and so not distracting, are horrible. Both to boot him before his successor is confirmed and to have a successor without prosecutorial experience. But perhaps there are mitigating factors?

After all the discussion, I still don’t know what we or anyone else is supposed to do about twitter mobs. Are they on the ballot? Can I cancel the cancel culture with my spending choices? I’m all for “Don’t be an a**hole” in all it’s subjectivity. Now what?

Over here we have the discussion mainly about street names. In some cases a renaming simply draws attention to otherwise completely forgotten persons, e.g. a street in my neighbourhood was originally named after a corporate executive who committed some questionable acts during the 3rd Reich, can't remember what exactly. There were probably few who ever heard of him and the street name was used without thinking. The very act of renaming it to a neutral place name made the guy 'famous' for a short time.
That street had no one actually living there, so it incurred few costs to residents (just the grocery discounter at the end had to change his address).
In other cases the city got creative. The names remained but where attributed to someone else of the same name (ideally only the surname was used in the first place).
A curious case was the Iltissstraße (polecat street). I think very few people knew that it was not named after the animal but after a gunboat Germany sent to China during the boxer rebellion. The only hint was that about every street in the vicinity had a more direct connection to the event. There it was decided to stick with the name but to erect several information signs in the area (all around the university that covers most of it) to explain the history. What made it even more problematic was that the ethnographic museum was also there which contains a lot of artifacts acquired during the colonial era by often questionable means.
The most recent debate was about a street in a quarter of Berlin that is officially called the African one because all roads are named after people and places in Africa or persons from our colonial past there. The idea was to remove the name of a particularly unsavoury character (who even had to testify before parliament about his brutality in the colonies) and replace it with that of an African queen of the same era (there is a local law that newly named streets have to get female names, if women are significantly underrepresented). Problem: That lady fought for independence (good) but also was involved in the local slave trade. I believe the case has not been fully decided yet and meanwhile the district took refuge in the 'same name, different person' cop-out. And of course there is no consent on whether the names of tribes and locations can to-day be seen as honoring them or whether the stench of colonialism cannot be removed and this remains a case of cultural appropriation in a sense.
We also have a discussion about military barrack and installation names usually centered on the question, whether a person that joined the resistance against Hitler (and died for it) after e.g. committing war crimes can be considered appropriate. The original naming was part of the post-war effort to spread the myth of the 'clean' Wehrmacht (i.e.the regular armed forces not being involved in the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the SS etc.).

My take on statues is this, most of the people fighting the civil war did so out of a sense of duty to their home state. Read any history and Lee picked Virginia over commanding the Union army. What the war was about politically had little interest to the people who made up state militias,mostly recruited after the war started to defend their homes. As much as people dislike the current politics of their leaders, on both sides, they would defend their homes, cities states and country, mostly in that order. Otherwise. We should condemn every sanctuary city, state government refusing to follow fed guidelines etc as traitors.

Someday we will thoughtfully separate out the character of people who fought when asked, fought honorably, from those who were despicably brutal and treat them each as deserved.

But just defacing and destroying any public monument or building has an appropriate consequence that should be enforced. Civil disobedience in the form of oeacef protest is different t than vandalism.

I still don’t know what we or anyone else is supposed to do about twitter mobs.

Don't encourage, celebrate, or pile on ?
Other than that, I have nothing, either.

Let me try to be concise: you don't seem to really have much nice to say to any of the conservatives who comment here. Sorry, but that's my take on it

(lj glances at sapient, who has been the target of his ire more times than he can count)
Bzzzzzt! I'm sorry, that's not the right answer, but you do get a set of steak knives as a consolation prize, thanks for playing!

The actual answer is-- I don't like people who hijack conversations. Maybe stroll back up and look at the video posted in the OP. Then look at the conversation before your entry. From all appearances, it looked like an interesting discussion about music, culture and appropriation. CharlesWT makes a content free post connecting cultural appropriation to cancel culture, which then piques your interest and you have a comment that closes with:

So, for me, like most of the other SJW/Woke devices for short-cutting substantive discussion or casting out (cancelling) the heretics, "cultural appropriation" is 99% BS.

Note how you dial that back here
This all got started with the question of cultural appropriation--again, an artifact of some subset of the Woke left (no offense intended, just as I'm sure no one intends to insult me when they refer to conservatives)--about which I expressed my views and then made the further, logical in my view, observation that accusations of cultural appropriation are often the basis for instituting a cancellation campaign.

You do know we can look back at what you wrote before?

I don't know, maybe you are the soul of generosity at your firm, humanitarian in your town, beloved family patriarch, with all your brood happily taking in your bon mots. I certainly hope so, cause here, you seem like a pure asshole. And given that we have come to the conclusion that the solution for twitter mobs is 'don't be an asshole', well, you can see the problem. Of course, you could say I'm just another asshole, but when you pique Russell's ire, well, you may want to reflect on that for a moment.

...dissing the Anthem and the flag does not sit well with vast majority of ticket-purchasing fans who, ultimately paid CK's not insubstantial salary.

Kneeling is a sign of respect.

CK was required to make a political statement of support for the anthem and flag. He has an issue with that, which he showed in the most respectful way imaginable.

Some people who claim to support peaceful protest mean that they support peaceful protest with the exception of any protest that anyone chooses to make.

no, don't protest that way. no not there. not now. not that loudly. you are imagining that. that's not a valid reason to protest.


As much as people dislike the current politics of their leaders, on both sides, they would defend their homes, cities states and country, mostly in that order.

i wouldn't defend my home in order to preserve slavery.

But what if your choice is between your home kust maybe getting burned down by Yankees, whether you are fighting for slavery or not, and it definitely getting burned down by your neighbours (or people hired or instigated by them) for not fighting for slavery? Would that be home-canceling culture?
But since your neighbours of then would have voted Democrat and, Demon rats being leftist by definition, it would have been leftist cancel culture again, so QED.

i'd start the process a bit earlier: there would be no slavery, and i wouldn't start or participate in a war to preserve it.

and if i did, because it came down to defending my house against people fighting against my side's insistence on having slaves, i wouldn't expect future generations to put up statues in honor of those who lost a war to keep slaves.

but, as always - a liberal wants something, so "conservatism" has to react.

No one here can actually pretend that cancel culture exists and is a preferred tool of the left. The original examples here are the tip of the iceberg with people losing their livelihood over political views pretty much weekly.

Any slight, no matter how small or unintentional, can get a social media campaign ending in firings and faux apologies by companies to limit the reputational impact. No apology by a person is sufficient contrition, no length of time adequate insulation from outrage.

As for civil disobedience, they took down the statue of Grant, the WINNER of the Civil War. Next will be the Vietnam Memorial. The Washington monument has to go, and Lincoln was pretty much forced into the Civil War so I'm not sure why he has a monument, really all white people took part in the theft of Native American lands so all of their statues have to come down, in fact they should really all go back to Europe after forfeiting all their possessions, then the black people can take their reparations and return to Africa so the Native Americans can have their traditional lands back, but we will need to return them to predevelopment pristine form, then we can start on centuries of history in other parts of the world to pick the time in a universally violent human history we should return all those lands to so we can history over.

Or, it's all bullshit.

most of the people fighting the civil war did so out of a sense of duty to their home state.

I think this needs some unpacking.

First, if we are going to speculate about the motives of people 160 years, my own speculation would be that the people who fought for the Confederacy did so for any of 100 reasons. Just like in any war.

Second, talk about "defending" their homes, cities, states, etc., implies that their homes, cities, states, etc., were under attack. That they were the target of aggression, rather than the aggressor. Which is, I think, a less-than-accurate description of the case we're discussing.

Third, any discussion of the Civil War that neglects to mention that the purpose of the Confederate States of America was to establish, perpetuate, and extend a society and economy based on the enslavement of people with black skin and the doctrine of white supremacy, is missing a certain key element. It's a lack of candor that borders on bad faith.

And those are my thoughts about your comment cited above.

My thoughts about the statues are that they weren't erected by the people who fought for the CSA, however nobly or for whatever motive. They were erected by other people, mostly a generation or more after the Civil War ended, and quite often for a mixture of reasons. Just like all statues and public monuments.

And quite often those reasons included a desire to affirm the doctrine that should have died with the CSA, which is the idea that people with white skin deserve a place of privilege relative to people with dark skin.

Do you disagree with that last statement?

Monuments to soldiers of the CSA are not value-neutral. They aren't simple historical artifacts, they aren't simply well-meant gestures of respect to men who fought 'nobly', even if for bad ends.

They might be that to you, but other folks are also involved. Folks who have to live with the statues, see them every day, and be reminded every day of a history that refuses to accept those folks as people.

There's a discussion we could have about when and whether destruction of property is a legitimate form of civil disobedience. That discussion would need to extend to things like, for example, the Boston tea party, or the kinds of monkey-wrenching activities that some environmental activists engage in. It's an area with a lot of sides to it.

But I have no problem with removing monuments to the CSA and its champions, per se. It was, frankly, an abominable regime, created for and dedicated to wicked ends.

If you think it was about states' rights, go and look at the CSA constitution and see if a free state could join the CSA.

when you pique Russell's ire

TBH, it doesn't take much to 'pique Russell's ire' these days.

I generally understand the distinction McK was trying to make - if you take a strong public position on controversial topic, people may respond to that in ways that are harmful to you, and you need to accept that.

I don't disagree with that, although different cases present different nuances to consider.

I just don't think it applies in my friend's case, since she had literally nothing to do with the statements that gave offense. She was just the parent and employer of the person who did.

But that ground has been covered, and I'm content to let it be.

Kneeling is a sign of respect.

CK was required to make a political statement of support for the anthem and flag. He has an issue with that, which he showed in the most respectful way imaginable.

This. And, given your (McKinney's) caveats somewhere upthread about how America has treated/often still treats (or if it's not America doing the treating, it's allowing the treating of) black people, CK's eloquent dignified protest of simultaneously showing respect but registering a serious misgiving, seems about as perfect a protest as could be devised.

no, don't protest that way. no not there. not now. not that loudly. you are imagining that. that's not a valid reason to protest.

Exactly.

As for civil disobedience, they took down the statue of Grant, the WINNER of the Civil War.

any chance the individuals who did that simply don't know the history ?

cancel culture exists and is a preferred tool of the left.

WHO THE FUCK IS THIS LEFT YOU TALK ABOUT?

that's my question.

some people use social media to harass other people. some of those people are "on the left", which can mean any of a million things. some of those people are "on the right", which can mean any of a million things.

how many of each? your guess is as good as mine. I haven't gone out and counted up every instance of people using social media to fuck with other people and then sorted them into piles in order to do the numbers.

If you have, show your work.

Short of that, I really and truly think it's sufficient to observe that some people use social media to screw around with other people's lives.

I don't think anyone here is defending that, from either direction.

If insisting that it's all a practice of some nefarious left - whoever the hell they are - for which everyone here at ObWi except you and maybe McK need to answer, far be it from me to stop you.

We just might get sick of being asked to answer for it.

We didn't do it. Most of us appear to think it's not a good thing to do. I'm not sure what else to say about it.

any chance the individuals who did that simply don't know the history ?

bearded guy on a horse wearing 19th C drag.

PULL IT DOWN!!!!

It is tiresome to be accused of bad faith because, in discussing the Civil War one doesnt feel the need to state the obvious. It seems to me that it is bad faith to pretend that slavery wasnt the order of the day in all of the US and many of the traders were from the North literally as the war was beginning.

Lincoln freed the slaves because they needed to be allowed to fight in the war and they were, by law in the North banned from being armed. There arent any saints in this story, so you're just picking a point in time to focus on.

I’m fine with people taking a nuanced view of historical figures. The problem with Confederate statues in particular is that they were erected to glorify racist ideology.

The “ traitor” label doesn’t interest me. The Founding Fathers were traitors too and the Confederates saw themselves the same way. What makes the Confederate cause wholly wrong is that it was in defense of slavery.

Of course the 1619 project claims our Revolution was also in defense of slavery, but I think that is oversimplified. For some maybe it was.

So if we were removing statues in a legal way, I would put the Confederates in a museum, but Washington would stay up, though with plaques stating that he was a slaveowners and the Iroquois might see him differently. Though we also shouldn’t romanticize how Native Americans fought their wars either.

Generally speaking statues aren’t about nuance. That is what is funny about Rod Dreher complaining about destroying our connection with history. Statues tell more about the people who erected the statue than they do about the person being honored. Maybe we should put up statues of iconoclasts tearing down statues next to the re- erected statues they tore down. Then we could have plaques explaining the motives of everyone, along with another plaque summarizing the life story, good and bad, of the person whose statue was torn down and the re- erected.

MkT— we moved to Memphis almost exactly when you did — in 1968. I lived my first 8 years in a Los Angeles suburb. I graduated HS in 77.

We just might get sick of being asked to answer for it.

We didn't do it. Most of us appear to think it's not a good thing to do. I'm not sure what else to say about it.

I certainly understand this feeling perfectly.

Mmy view is you shouldnt pull down a statue of someone if you dont know who they are, kinda questions the legitimacy of your vandalism as protest.

kinda questions the legitimacy of your vandalism as protest.

people are pissed.

.

every time i see one of those confederate statues here in NC, i try to imagine what they must symbolize for the descendants of slaves. what "heritage" are they celebrating?

and then i try to imagine what it must feel like for those descendants of slaves to be told that it's really all about the dignity of the common man who was just honorably defending his home against invaders in a war he didn't... yadayadayada.

and then i marvel at the fact that those descendants of slaves haven't yet gone full Django and torn down every one of those statues then beat all their defenders to death with the debris.

such admirable restraint!

but yes, they should leave Grant alone.

There arent any saints in this story, so you're just picking a point in time to focus on.

I don't disagree with much of anything in your 9:36.

The point in time I'm trying to focus on with reference to the statues is *now*. If people want to remove the statues *now*, IMO that's completely legitimate. Whatever the intentions of the people who put them up were.

I certainly understand this feeling perfectly.

Fairly stated, well played, and noted.

History is complicated. People are complicated. Some are or were better than others. No one is or was perfect.

How does forcing black people to see monuments to people who fought to preserve and expand the enslavement of black people help anyone understand any of that any better? Or, even if it does help people understand those things to some degree, is it worth the pain it causes?

Let's not pretend these statues are anything but reminders that white people are still in charge.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad