You know that in the last couple of days some of the signatories have actually apologized for daring to agree to something that J.K. Rowling agrees with. I won't bore you with the details, those who follow the transgender wars know the story and if the rest haven't heard it by now they're not interested. — fishfry

I've noticed this and many media outlets have noticed this too. Which just makes it more hilarious. So seems like the Harper's address really made some waves in the glass.

This frightens me greatly. Not just because of the mob, but because the entire corporate apparatus is behind it. If you're not woke you're ostracized and the very idea of free speech comes from privilege. — fishfry

It tells extremely well just how off the track public discourse is going. You see, I object to the idea that all this is because of a few 'cultural marxists' infiltrating somehow corporate boards or newsrooms. That I think is nonsense. What I think has happened is simply that a) the social media has created a mob mentality by itself and b) people are afraid of this "mob" and then self-censore themselves and react by excessive virtue signalling. Then a small contingent of very loud actors know how this now system operates and get their voice heard when they cry out. It's not that they are all "cultural marxists", a lot of those that fire then the people, make the decision to cancel somebody have little if any ideological support of cultural marxism. Likely many aren't even leftists.

Just as an example of this from the opposite side, in order to show how this is more of an "environmental" problem: let's take the cancel culture / attacks from the right. Some time ago, when Trump was more popular than now, a Republican or another commentator would get attacked by Trump supporters if they criticized Trump (and weren't part of the normal anti-Trump crowd). Hence the majority of Republicans who may have some criticism towards Trump were silenced by the fear of this mob. It's not that Trump was behind these attack, not even likely the Russian trolls (as they are still few of those), it's just the way how vitriolic the social media has become.

This frightens me greatly. Not just because of the mob, but because the entire corporate apparatus is behind it. If you're not woke you're ostracized and the very idea of free speech comes from privilege.

This is sick. This is a nightmare. Somebody talk me down, tell me this isn't happening. — fishfry

It's not maintainable. The mob is not organized enough or smart enough to control the majority, who are not in the mob and never will be because of the inherent exclusivity (narcissism).

Their MO is to tear down anyone with power. That precludes them from ever truly organizing, and has led to infighting as we've seen many times now.

You're acting like the people capitulating to the mob are great men who've been broken down... they're not, they're just cowards. There's plenty of people who already look at that letter as horseshit because they've already learned these people cannot be reasoned with.

This is sick. This is a nightmare. Somebody talk me down, tell me this isn't happening. — fishfry

Really can't express how funny this is to me

This giant statue on top Gellért-hegy in Budapest was a Soviet icon representing the close alliance of Hungary and the USSR. After the Soviets abandoned Hungary thirty years ago there were pleas to tear it down, as it represented oppression by a foreign power. However, cooler heads prevailed and instead of removing it, it was reinterpreted as "Goodbye to Russia!". It remains a beautiful tourist attraction.

Indeed, as evidenced on this very forum where reason seems in short supply on certain topics.
I think the behaviour is cultish, with cultish characteristics. Purity testing (virtue signalling), in-group reporting, rigid adherence to ideology, us vs them mentality, Belief in the moral superiority of those in the cult, punishing dissent or doubt, use of shame/guilt to influence/control members of the cult, the ends justify the means...all characteristics shared by these extreme activist types and a cult.

Comes to mind the Berlin wall with it's famous Checkpoint Charlie. The wall was actually first demolished only to be partly built up again as Germans understood what a great piece of history and a tourist attraction it would be. But at first tempers were high as so many had died there. I did have the opportunity to go from West Berlin to East Berlin via Checkpoint Charlie when it was still functioning.



Now what Checkpoint Charlie looks like:


Some remains of the "anti-fascist protective wall" as it was known in East-Germany:

Yeah no one actually believes that nonsense about "erasing history". Obviously statues and monuments are not how we document or learn history (that's what history books and history classes are for), but how we celebrate and honor certain individuals (or events).. but its politically/socially problematic to just come out say that you support the celebration and valorization of e.g. confederate traitors/slavers/etc, so you talk about "erasing history" instead, as if that was what any of this was about. But of course documenting history doesn't entail celebrating racists, so that doesn't hold any water whatsoever. And many of these statues and named buildings are far more recent, and were acts of defiance in light of legal losses by schools or other organizations trying to resist civil rights, de-segregation, and so on. So the entire argument against removing/renaming is completely disingenuous.

And the hand-wringing over "cancel culture" is absolutely hilarious. As if any of these idiots has a right to have a massive platform, or for people to buy their books or watch their shows. If you want these privileges, its simple common sense to avoid saying dumb, offensive stuff, and if you can't manage that you should expect this sort of backlash.

This frightens me greatly. Not just because of the mob, but because the entire corporate apparatus is behind it. If you're not woke you're ostracized and the very idea of free speech comes from privilege.

This is sick. This is a nightmare. Somebody talk me down, tell me this isn't happening.

I don't think you've achieved maximum melodrama/hyperbole here, I think you still have room for even more- go big or go home! :lol:

...you’ve reached maximum delusion. You have no more space up your ass for your head to fit inside of.

Buddhas of Bamyan: The Taliban were good at cancel culture



(Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taller_Buddha_of_Bamiyan_before_and_after_destruction.jpg)

No one was talking to you junior. Stick with the kiddie pool.

I dont think Fishfry was was addressing you either you clueless hypocrite. The concerns he expressed are 100% legit, and dismissing them only shows your hopeless bias. Kev made a good point about reason not being an option.
Junior. :roll:

I don't think you've achieved maximum melodrama/hyperbole here, I think you still have room for even more- go big or go home! — Enai De A Lukal

Do you happen to remember Mao's cultural revolution? You don't see echoes of that in our present situation?

This giant statue on top Gellért-hegy in Budapest was a Soviet icon representing the close alliance of Hungary and the USSR. After the Soviets abandoned Hungary thirty years ago there were pleas to tear it down, as it represented oppression by a foreign power. However, cooler heads prevailed and instead of removing it, it was reinterpreted as "Goodbye to Russia!". It remains a beautiful tourist attraction. — jgill

Exactly. Kind of reminds me of how the n-word has been reinterpreted as something that is racism to something that isn't. If we're tearing down racist symbols then why aren't we abandoning the use of the n-word? If we can reinterpret a symbol, then why not reinterpret those statues being torn down as a history lesson rather than a racist symbol?

Buddhas of Bamyan: The Taliban were good at cancel culture — jgill

Are the statues of Confederate generals put up around 1900 important historical artifacts to you?

I think you'll find Walmart, cheered on by Ronald Reagan, demanded its suppliers divest themselves of American workers. Not the whole story, but it got the ball rolling.

Culture is not who we are. But it does supply us with the language we need to know it is not who we are. If we are intimate enough with our culture, and with each other, we can recognize in each other just what it means that our culture is not who we are. Problem is, we have to convince ourselves that our culture really is who we are to become sufficiently intimate to it to achieve its function of helping us to intimate to each other who we really are. Culture wars, therefore, is a delusion. A very dangerous one. Reason is reductive. In the end, there is nothing that really belongs there to its terms of deciding who and what belongs to a group or class. But the conviction of the decisiveness of that determination catches us in a regress we can only escape by recognizing that all the terms of that determination are fallacious. Culture can only fulfill its role of offering us the language of our knowing each other by recognizing through each other, with each other's help, that it is not who we are if it only operates by inclusion, and never by exclusion. But reason can only be reductive, and induction, inclusion, can on;y occur in the moment the reductive process fails us in our recognition of its emptiness. But we are never alone there. For we had to have help from each other getting there, and that help intimates us to each other as forcefully as it intimates exclusion is a vicious circle. Culture warriors are living in an abyss of their own making.

Do you happen to remember Mao's cultural revolution? You don't see echoes of that in our present situation? — fishfry

Our present situation is ultimately different from China’s state of affairs in 1966. All in all, China was primarily an agricultural country where the vast majority of the population had the traditional, ancient culture and style of life. Mao mobilized “cultural revolutionaries” to accelerate the country and tighten his grip on power. Likely, what we deal with right now, is not ‘a culture war’ or ‘a cultural revolution.’ If our culture, our symbolic order, has not been maintained via ‘traditional symbolic means,’ our ‘cultural revolution’ has already happened. Therefore, it is a struggle to redefine the parameters and limits of free speech, public political debate, the way to initiate, and frame public opinion agendas. Freedom of speech is the subject of the expedite socio-political construction rather than the fixed and timeless entity.
As Kev noted:

It's not maintainable. The mob is not organized enough or smart enough to control the majority, who are not in the mob and never will be because of the inherent exclusivity (narcissism). — Kev

‘the narcissistic majority’ (the similar term is ‘the silent majority’) will survive and feel well enough even if the more significant restrictions of political correctness will be imposed.

:lol: still hopelessly lost, poor little guy.. stick to what you know- in your case, splashing around in the kiddie pool. "100% legit", what a rube.

No, not really. Thus the amusingly hyperbolic/melodramatic nature of your previous comment. Dial it back a few notches, no need to be Chicken Little over something fairly common-sensical.

(though I do appreciate the emotive and rhetorical nature of these sorts of melodramatic "the sky is falling" pronouncements- but still, its just unnecessary)

Exactly. Kind of reminds me of how the n-word has been reinterpreted as something that is racism to something that isn't. If we're tearing down racist symbols then why aren't we abandoning the use of the n-word? If we can reinterpret a symbol, then why not reinterpret those statues being torn down as a history lesson rather than a racist symbol? — Harry Hindu

I agree with you.
But reinterpretation of a symbol is just the first step of destroying it.

Buddhas of Bamyan: The Taliban were good at cancel culture — jgill

(Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taller_Buddha_of_Bamiyan_before_and_after_destruction.jpg — jgill

In principle, I am against destroying statues or any other historical artifacts.Yet, likely, this particular statue cannot play any role in our cultural practices. For most of us the symbolic significance of this monument has been completely lost. Probably, it can explain why so many people do not care about statues anymore.

But reinterpretation of a symbol is just the first step of destroying it. — Number2018

No, you're destroying what it means, not the symbol itself. People are destroying symbols rather than what it means, as if that symbol could only mean racism, yet they contradict themselves when the use a raciat symbol (the n-word) in a way that isn't racist. Its typical of politics - contradicting oneself.

‘the narcissistic majority’ (the similar term is ‘the silent majority’) will survive and feel well enough even if the more significant restrictions of political correctness will be imposed. — Number2018

I think you misinterpreted me. I don't think the silent majority is narcissistic, not as it pertains to their political position. The mob is not the majority, but a relatively small and vocal minority. I say the mob is inherently exclusive because they must remain a minority to stand for change--this is also why they must always see themselves as an underdogs; if things need to change, then obviously the people who want them changed do not have enough power.

They are narcissists because they want to be the ones to fix the world. This is why peer pressure is also such a big factor in how the mob operates. Identity is the driving force on the individual level. They are creating their identity, and how they are perceived by their peers is the biggest part of that.

This giant statue on top Gellért-hegy in Budapest was a Soviet icon representing the close alliance of Hungary and the USSR. After the Soviets abandoned Hungary thirty years ago there were pleas to tear it down, as it represented oppression by a foreign power. However, cooler heads prevailed and instead of removing it, it was reinterpreted as "Goodbye to Russia!". It remains a beautiful tourist attraction. — jgill

There's two problems with this: 1. Hungary was not willfully part of the USSR. 2. Hungarians decided to keep the statue.

If Russians were the ones saying that the statue should stay up, while the Hungarians said it should come down, that would be different. If black southerners decided the confederate statues should stay up because they want the reminder of history, as a sort of "goodbye" to the confederacy, that would be different.

Do black southerners get to make that choice? No. So we'll never know. A lot of white people have spoken for them.

Our present situation is ultimately different from China’s state of affairs in 1966 — Number2018

I'm glad you're so optimistic. My concern is that in contrast to, say, the Occupy protests of 2011, the current destruction and violence is approved of by Democratic leaders. I don't share your view but I suppose we'll all find out. I'm not worried because I'm not a statue of George Washington and they're only coming for the statues /s.

I am not optimistic. I just said that our situation is different. Indeed, the current violence
is not just a kind of symbolic violence. It is also actual violence. I completely understand your position and your
concerns, but who knows what happens next? Your understanding is that all was initiated be Dems and the elites. Are they interested in further escalation?
Getting back to China, in 1968
Mao cancelled his cultural revolution. Right now, if Dems
win the elections, will they try to stop the trend?
Getting back to my view, there a few scenarios, and
I worked out just one of them, in the most general level.

Your understanding is that all was initiated be Dems — Number2018

Surely that is nothing I ever wrote or believed.

Right now, if Dems
win the elections, will they try to stop the trend? — Number2018

I've asked myself that question. I'm of the opinion that the mainstream Dems (Pelosi and company) are using the leftist violence to further their aim of deposing Trump; and believe they'll be able to get the genie back in the bottle after they win the election.

On the contrary, I think they'll find that they've unleashed forces that they can no longer control; and that if the Dems should win, nothing they do will satisfy the radical leftist mob.

We'll all have to wait and find out. Personally I'm not optimistic.

Not initiated but approved.
Sorry. Even if we take your Chomsky’s conceptual
framework: is the ruling elite interested in destroying
the US?

I see. The worst case scenario.
Lets hope it will not happen! Thank you for your honest
opinions! :wink:

is the ruling elite interested in destroying
the US? — Number2018

Arguably yes.