Other Random question of the day: The Discussions

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Since I sometimes ask loaded questions that are bound to spark discussion in the Random question of the day thread, here's a separate thread that allows discussion of the loaded questions as to not clog up the question thread. So if I end up asking any loaded questions in the Random question of the day thread, you're allowed to discuss them in here.

 

[Merciless Medic]

Oh, didn't know this existed until now. xD well hi :3

 

[Unknown mask]

I didn't even know this was here until I saw it.

 

[Owlbear]

As for the term 'cancel culture', it used to be called call-out culture before its rebranding and was called out by people like Barack Obama before Trump came to office over four years ago. So... Its not a single partisan thing [Those dang republican/those dang lefties]

All I can find about Obama calling out "call-out culture" is from 2019. And even then he specifically talked about it's usage of the left, so while it's not partisan (which I never claimed it was) it's still used to discredit one side of the political spectrum way more than the other.

Edit: On re-reading my other post I realised that it did come across as me saying that it was partisan. So oops.

and it is something being researched, examined, and discussed in various universities from Yale to Harvard, so denying its existence, to me, is a bit silly.

Something being researched and discussed doesn't necessarily mean that it exists.

I think it's a bit silly to say that something exist while there's no real definition of it. If cancel culture is used to describe everything from people getting upset at an old tweet to, say, Dr Seuss's estate making a decision based entirely on their own volition then the term is completely meaningless.

 

[Jannah]

My issue with "cancel culture" is that it's used as a witch hunt in many cases. A lot of people have been targeted for things they said years ago that others specifically went looking for. I don't think it's entirely fair to judge people based on things they said years ago. People's views change and until we have solid evidence that's not the case then we should be willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Cosmo]

All I can find about Obama calling out "call-out culture" is from 2019. And even then he specifically talked about it's usage of the left, so while it's not partisan (which I never claimed it was) it's still used to discredit one side of the political spectrum way more than the other.

Edit: On re-reading my other post I realised that it did come across as me saying that it was partisan. So oops.


Something being researched and discussed doesn't necessarily mean that it exists.

I think it's a bit silly to say that something exist while there's no real definition of it. If cancel culture is used to describe everything from people getting upset at an old tweet to, say, Dr Seuss's estate making a decision based entirely on their own volition then the term is completely meaningless.

In order to be researched and discussed, the concept of it has to exist. Cancel culture cannot exist like water or hydrogen can, its not a physical object you can pick up and put in your pocket [I would advise against putting water in your pocket], but the concept of cancel culture, what it means, what it does, how it can be used and how it can effect the world absolutely exist.

People misusing a term isn't shocking, unusual or new. People do that with everything. The fact people will call the smallest things a clear example cancel culture doesn't really change anything.

Hell, even saying 'Nah, not a thing' just.. kinda baffles me. Shunning people and companies for things they say or do has been a thing since civilization started. The phrase, and concept, of persona non grata is a thing for a reason. The 'recent trend' of cancel culture, to me, is less the act of shunning people and companies and more the rapid speed at which it happens as well as over the varying issues or degrees of severity of that issue which stems from a more interconnected world via the internet which has, arguably and is part of what is being discussed by various people, made this far more impactful and dangerous [The extent, validity, etc all part of that discussion].

 

[Owlbear]

but the concept of cancel culture, what it means, what it does, how it can be used and how it can effect the world absolutely exist

But I don't buy that the concept exist.

Again, the term is so meaningless that everything you want can be classified as cancel culture. And for a concept to exist (at least in a meaningful way) there must be an actual definition of it.

People misusing a term isn't shocking, unusual or new.

But the fact that the people who are misusing the term are the strongest believers in it is what puts the nail in the coffin of it for me.

Shunning people and companies for things they say or do has been a thing since civilization started.

I think we're arguing about different things here.

I don't deny that people have shunned people or companies for perceived transgressions.

But that's not what people refer to when they're talking about cancel culture.

Like, everyone I've asked or I've seen respond to similar criticism always make it clear that cancel culture isn't the same thing as shunning someone or boycotting a company. Ted Cruz for example, claims that boycotting a company for supporting Trump is "cancel culture" yet simultaneously claims that his boycott of Nike was "free speech", so at least to him there is a difference.

 

[Cosmo]

But I don't buy that the concept exist.

Again, the term is so meaningless that everything you want can be classified as cancel culture. And for a concept to exist (at least in a meaningful way) there must be an actual definition of it.


But the fact that the people who are misusing the term are the strongest believers in it is what puts the nail in the coffin of it for me.


I think we're arguing about different things here.

I don't deny that people have shunned people or companies for perceived transgressions.

But that's not what people refer to when they're talking about cancel culture.

Like, everyone I've asked or I've seen respond to similar criticism always make it clear that cancel culture isn't the same thing as shunning someone or boycotting a company. Ted Cruz for example, claims that boycotting a company for supporting Trump is "cancel culture" yet simultaneously claims that his boycott of Nike was "free speech", so at least to him there is a difference.

No, there doesn't. the definition of words, concept and ideas change constantly as society changes and evolves. When I said that, I was more teasing you because saying a concept doesn't exist doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a concept is just an idea. You can argue a concept has no real, tangible impact on the material world we live in, which would be one thing, but just going, 'Meh, I don't believe this concept exist as a concept' just... doesn't work. You can't say an idea isn't an idea because you don't agree with the idea.

Do you have any evidence that supports that people misusing the term are the strongest believers or is this anecdotal evidence or personal belief?

Again, just because someone is using the word at X and purposely not using it at Y, despite it likely applying at both, does not invalidate the word. Like at all. Yes, I know, people, especially politicians, like to use buzzwords to attack their enemies but avoid using that word when it could reflect badly on them, in other shocking news, it was discovered that the universe, is indeed, very large. This doesn't change the concept, this is just humans being humans.

Cancel culture absolutely can take the form of a boycott [I'd say it often does]. When you boycott something, you are removing support usually monetary support in order to stop them or get it changed. When someone, or something, is being 'cancel cultured' [man that was a weird thing to write], people are removing their support for them to stop them or get it changed. Before you were putting your belief on Cancel Culture being 'not a thing' based on perceived failures and successes. For example, James Gunn was removed from GotG 3 for old tweets. People were angry, Disney got ahead of it and removed him [Didn't help that it happened at a.. very, very bad time]. James Gunn was later put back in once things cooled off and thanks to support from the cast of GotG 3 and fan support from people who wanted to see James Gunn continue his work. Can easily argue that Cancel Culture failed. James Gunn was not stopped. He was not removed. However, just because it failed, it doesn't mean it stops existing. When a boycott or protest fails, it doesn't mean the concept of boycotts or protest cease to exist.

So, what, exactly, are you basing your debate that 'it doesn't exist' on? Are you measuring success and failures [perceived and otherwise]? How people use the word [Which would be silly. People don't use the word 'literally' right all the time, doesn't mean the concept stops existing]? What, exactly, are you basing your argument on?

 

[Owlbear]

can't say an idea isn't an idea because you don't agree with the idea

I'm not, I'm saying that there's no meaning to the concept, hence it doesn't exist.

Like, I think it takes more for a concept to exist then for people to say that it exists. You have to ascribe an actual meaning to it.

Do you have any evidence that supports that people misusing the term are the strongest believers or is this anecdotal evidence or personal belief?

Look, I can sit and point to examples like Ted Cruz or Fox News or how The Daily Wire's Micheal Knowles referred to Mccarthyism and the Red Scare as "good" and "just" all day.

Edit: Confused one guy with another.

Cancel culture absolutely can take the form of a boycott [I'd say it often does].

Again, you're arguing a point nobody is making.

My point wasn't that boycotts can't be a part of cancel culture, just that it takes more than just a boycott as evident by the fact that so strong opponents to cancel culture as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump both encouraged boycotts of their own.

So, what, exactly, are you basing your debate that 'it doesn't exist' on?

That it lacks a definition, that it means whatever people wants it to mean when it's convenient for them.

Like sure, people misuses words like literally but there's still an actual definition of the concept.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm not, I'm saying that there's no meaning to the concept, hence it doesn't exist.

Like, I think it takes more for a concept to exist then for people to say that it exists. You have to ascribe an actual meaning to it.


Look, I can sit and point to examples like Ted Cruz or Fox News or how Alan Dershowitz (Author of "Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process) referred to Mccarthyism and the Red Scare as "good" and "just" all day.


Again, you're arguing a point nobody is making.

My point wasn't that boycotts can't be a part of cancel culture, just that it takes more than just a boycott as evident by the fact that so strong opponents to cancel culture as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump both encouraged boycotts of their own.



That it lacks a definition, that it means whatever people wants it to mean when it's convenient for them.

Like sure, people misuses words like literally but there's still an actual definition of the concept.

Dude, cancel culture is on Merriam-Webster. Its a concept. It has meaning. People have given it meaning. That is how it works. People can use it to imply different things. People can use it to demonize or exalt things to their whim, such is how huamns human.

I can point to thousands of random twitter post of the same. So, just to be clear, anecdotal evidence, then?

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Cosmo Don't bother, dude. Arguing with this guy is a lost cause.

 

[Jannah]

Macintot since this is the discussion thread I'll tag you here.

I'm assuming you work in healthcare so, firstly, I just want to say thank you. I can only imagine how stressful the past couple years has been for all of you.

Secondly, I'm glad you are coming out to tell things as they are. Too many people are still in denial about this virus and it's incredibly frustrating. They think it's little more than a flu, but I don't see the flu killing at least 1% of the people it infects. I also don't see the flu leaving people with lingering ailments even months later. I actually know of somebody who has lung damage from Covid. She is young, 20's, and has no underlying conditions. She was perfectly healthy before she got Covid. Her's not is not an isolated incident too.

Additionally, there are those denialists who continue to be in denial about Covid even on their death beds. Now, that one truly baffles me. On the bright side, Covid infections have managed to change the tune of some of the survivors. There are former denialists out there who are now urging others to start taking it more seriously and get vaccinated. That does give me some hope that humanity is not entirely lost...yet.

I know you probably know all these things, but it's something I have felt quite strongly about right from the beginning. I'm sick of this pandemic being politicized, particularly to bring in a selfish anti-mask and anti-vaxx agenda. Much of Asia was already using masks long before Covid was even a thing. Why? They understand that if one wears a mask while sick then it protects others from getting sick. It seems North Americans (and Europeans) are either too selfish or too privileged to see that or even think of the needs of others before themselves. The person they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or get a shot could be immunocompromised, thus could get serious complications from Covid. These anti-maskers/anti-vaxxers have blood on their hands, and nothing will change my mind on that.

/end rant

 

[Jannah]

Idea I am tagging you here as to not derail the question thread. I just want comment on some of your points. There typically is no such thing as absolute free speech. A lot of people who claim to be for free speech are really only in favour of free speech for opinions they agree with. I have seen plenty of right-wing bigoted types claim they want socialist and communist speech suppressed, just to name one example. Of course, on the flip-side there's a lot of progressive types who take a similar view in that they want bigoted speech banned. So yea, absolute free speech does not truly exist. Even corporations will ban certain view points from being expressed (looking at you Facebook...).

 

[Idea]

Idea I am tagging you here as to not derail the question thread. I just want comment on some of your points. There typically is no such thing as absolute free speech. A lot of people who claim to be for free speech are really only in favour of free speech for opinions they agree with. I have seen plenty of right-wing bigoted types claim they want socialist and communist speech suppressed, just to name one example. Of course, on the flip-side there's a lot of progressive types who take a similar view in that they want bigoted speech banned. So yea, absolute free speech does not truly exist. Even corporations will ban certain view points from being expressed (looking at you Facebook...).

Well, first I agree absolute freedom of speech does not exist, in the sense that so long as any blocking of freedom exist means the current freedom of speech is not absolute. I understand this is not quite what you're talking about though, but I just wanted to mention it to get it out of the way of my next point.

What I was referencing was not the practical state of things nor people's desires. What I was talking about is a paradox wherein the very idea of things like absolute freedom of speech and total tolerance are self-defeating, as they necessarily require the permission of things which are against themselves and which will inevitably erode them. I was answering the question starting from a philosophical approach on why I believe the state inquired about is fundamentally impossible.

That being said, I nonetheless believe it is something to be strived for. Though I believe that the results of absolute freedom of speech for example are impossible or at the very least unsustainable, I also believe that in the process of continuing to strive for it we can at least establish within our cultural framework that it is not something which ought to be trivialized.

 

[Cosmo]

I am tagging you here as to not derail the question thread. I just want comment on some of your points. There typically is no such thing as absolute free speech. A lot of people who claim to be for free speech are really only in favour of free speech for opinions they agree with. I have seen plenty of right-wing bigoted types claim they want socialist and communist speech suppressed, just to name one example. Of course, on the flip-side there's a lot of progressive types who take a similar view in that they want bigoted speech banned. So yea, absolute free speech does not truly exist. Even corporations will ban certain view points from being expressed (looking at you Facebook...).

That really has little to do with free speech and is entirely the awesome human condition that is hypocrisy.

 

[Idea]

redseaobject I basically just took the literal interpretation of the "world peace" question, as in literally there being no wars or large scale armed conflicts.

 

[Scoundrel]

Why do some people feel the need to bring politics into music?

If you don't mind, can you give some examples of people bringing politics into music?

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

If you don't mind, can you give some examples of people bringing politics into music?

One time I was reading through the comment section of a Schindler's List music video, and there was this one pro-Trump user that associated the song with anti-liberal matters, and that struck a nerve with me. Granted, Schindler's List was a politically related movie, but it just struck a nerve with me that this person had the gall to compare the Holocaust to a liberal candidate potentially winning an American election.

 

[Idea]

AlexneushoornTheGreat wait I'm lost, how do you go from "everyone is allowed to like things about Star Wars including (...)" to refusing to engage in a critical piece of media? Surely you can enjoy something while acknowledging it has flaws.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

AlexneushoornTheGreat wait I'm lost, how do you go from "everyone is allowed to like things about Star Wars including (...)" to refusing to engage in a critical piece of media? Surely you can enjoy something while acknowledging it has flaws.

Well, the original post was something that spoke out against toxic gatekeeping, and I found the post interesting enough to share with my friends on Discord and get a bit of a discussion going, and one person made a bit of an analysis and voiced their own opinion on the Star Wars franchise, and I asked them that what it all came down to, it's good to be optimistic about Star Wars and see the good in everything but that you can go overboard with the optimism.

The person responded that there is optimism and there is refusing to critically engage in a piece of media because you don't want there to be anything bad about it. They also said that they don't think it's fundamentally a good thing that children of all generations get Star Wars and that the original post believed it to be a good thing because a few people like it.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

WhiskeyMarten When I woke up this morning, I saw some fans on a Total Drama Discord server talking about how Fresh TV has shut down yet another Total Drama fan project called Camp Disventure, which led to me asking that question. I am simply outraged by the fact that companies like Nintendo and Fresh TV are sucking the fans' passion out of the franchises they love for some stupid reason and wish they would stop this shit, but I'm well aware that we as fans are powerless to do anything about it.

Reason why I tagged you here is because I wanted to avoid derailing the question thread.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Mitheral I'm tagging you here because I want to avoid clogging up the question thread with discussion, but what about my question is against the RPN rules? I just checked the handbook, and I don't see a thing about my question that's against the RPN rules. So why say that in response to my question?

 

[Mitheral]

Mitheral I'm tagging you here because I want to avoid clogging up the question thread with discussion, but what about my question is against the RPN rules? I just checked the handbook, and I don't see a thing about my question that's against the RPN rules. So why say that in response to my question?

No no ... sorry. Was just a joke.

In seriousness, the reasons are the same. Comic book codes back when She Hulk was created were a little fickle about some issues regarding scantily clad women. Truth is, porn was actually a subject matter regarding the comic back in the 80's. I collected the series from issue 1.

 

[Mitheral]

R.I.P.: The Comics Code Authority | TIME.com

The Comics Code Authority, the organization responsible for making sure American comic books were safe for children's consumption, blinked out of existence late last week, following the withdrawal of the final two publishers that used its services. It was 56 years old.

techland.time.com

Read this article. It explains the history quite well.

”It (Comic Code Authority) also insisted that ” females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities”–that one was hard to enforce–and tut-tutted that “a sympathetic understanding of the problems of love is not a license for moral distortion.”

She Hulk was one of the biggest violators of the CCA rules.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that. Due to my autism, I have a hard time detecting humor. But now I know the reasoning behind the differences between Hulk and She-Hulk's transformations. Thanks again for explaining that.