The History of Political Correctness and Why Today's World has Gone Mad

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
5,102
If a comedians only responsibility is to make people laugh they shouldn't complain about being canceled.
ok, i understand what you are saying now. if there is no public demand to see a comedian, thats one thing. but there are comedians (and speakers!!) who have a following but are not allowed to perform because a specific group finds them offensive. this has happened many times and continues to happen.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,182
ok, i understand what you are saying now. if there is no public demand to see a comedian, thats one thing. but there are comedians (and speakers!!) who have a following but are not allowed to perform because a specific group finds them offensive. this has happened many times and continues to happen.
Gotcha.

The problem with what you're saying is that's like forcing Fox News to hire liberals. Basically I'm pretty sure platforms should have freedom of choice as to what they want to promote. And obviously I get that such situations suck sometimes. But I didn't force anyone to sign a contract or put their whole monetary life in the hands of some corporation like Youtube.
 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
5,102
The problem with what you're saying is that's like forcing Fox News to hire liberals.
not at all. this isnt about hiring "diversity". this is about cancel culture.

i wouldnt care who performed what at whatever venue. even if i did find it offensive, i would never prevent those who do wish to go to the event from attending. but thats not the case at all with the far left/progressives. like him or not, milo yanipplous (whatever... "milo".) had to cancel some of his venues and you can recall that lauren southern and stefan molyneux were forced to cancel ALL of their events in new zealand ... thats just off the top of my head.
i think we agree on that.

But I didn't force anyone to sign a contract or put their whole monetary life in the hands of some corporation like Youtube.
youtube censorship is a different discussion.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,182
not at all. this isnt about hiring "diversity". this is about cancel culture.

i wouldnt care who performed what at whatever venue. even if i did find it offensive, i would never prevent those who do wish to go to the event from attending. but thats not the case at all with the far left/progressives. like him or not, milo yanipplous (whatever... "milo".) had to cancel some of his venues and you can recall that lauren southern and stefan molyneux were forced to cancel ALL of their events in new zealand ... thats just off the top of my head.
i think we agree on that.
I vaguely remember Milo Yanipplous. But yes we agree in a sense that I would give anyone who got canceled a second chance. Like I said before, I'm not the one being unreasonable here. I don't know all the particulars there, and I'm not biased to any side. At some point though, people are going to get canceled. Whether it's market forces or political correctness at work the conclusion is the same. The issue becomes a problem of practicality, as in differentiating between all the canceling type forces.

You say you're not trying to enforce some kind of diversity type agenda, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, your argument kind of seems like it will lead to some sort of diversity based philosophy. In essence, you aren't drawing any lines, when there should probably be some lines drawn. Like, let's not open the floodgates and give everyone with a microphone special treatment.

youtube censorship is a different discussion.
Why? Because the platform is virtual instead of physical? Maybe I'll buy that argument, but it seems a little flimsy. Any venue whether physical or virtual abides by the same laws of business, or culture.
 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
5,102
At some point though, people are going to get canceled. Whether it's market forces or political correctness at work the conclusion is the same. The issue becomes a problem of practicality, as in differentiating between all the canceling type forces.
this is a clear cut issue.
i have no problem (nor should you) if something is cancelled due to economic forces. in other words, we agree to let the market make the decision.
i DO have a problem when there is a demand for something and its unavailable because someone might be offended by it.

You say you're not trying to enforce some kind of diversity type agenda, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
what am i enforcing?

Like, let's not open the floodgates and give everyone with a microphone special treatment.
youre going to have to explain this a bit more in detail. im not following.

Why? Because the platform is virtual instead of physical? Maybe I'll buy that argument, but it seems a little flimsy. Any venue whether physical or virtual abides by the same laws of business, or culture.
the YT censorship is a totally different issue. heres why:
first, YT owns their site. as a platform, they have the right to do as they please on their platform, regardless of who demands what. (then theres the issue whether they are a publisher OR a platform. if they are a platform, then they have the right to decide what is OK to be on their website, but then they also take responsibilty for any content posted there. if they are a publisher, then they take no responsibility for the content but cannot censor or block anyone. right now, both YT and FB and twitter are straddling this line of section 230.)
this is a completely different situation than someone who wants to host a comedy show, is selling tickets, and then it gets cancelled due to pressure from another organization because they find it offensive.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,182
what am i enforcing?
demand for something and its unavailable because someone might be offended by it.
I figured it is best to show how you answered your own question, and tie that into my response to your latest response.

youre going to have to explain this a bit more in detail. im not following.
This should be easy to answer after the previous setup. Basically your comments about the demand for things that might be offensive are too vague. Like clearly you aren't pro-criminal or pro-psycho, but there's a demand for a lot of things that push those boundaries. And sometimes cultural problems can only be solved by cultural change.

Didn't "Milo Kannapolis" make jokes about child marriage, or touching little boys? Like, come on man. People are responsible for the type of energy they put into the world.

the YT censorship is a totally different issue. heres why:
first, YT owns their site. as a platform, they have the right to do as they please on their platform, regardless of who demands what. (then theres the issue whether they are a publisher OR a platform. if they are a platform, then they have the right to decide what is OK to be on their website, but then they also take responsibilty for any content posted there. if they are a publisher, then they take no responsibility for the content but cannot censor or block anyone. right now, both YT and FB and twitter are straddling this line of section 230.)
this is a completely different situation than someone who wants to host a comedy show, is selling tickets, and then it gets cancelled due to pressure from another organization because they find it offensive.
A venue hosting any comedy show owns that property too. Or are you talking about comedians literally renting out properties to do their own shows? Because I'm pretty sure, that never happens. Of course, I'm not the expert on the field of entertainment, but it seems like they all entertain under contracts from owners of the property. Just like any Youtube account operates under a contract from Youtube.
 






polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
5,102
Like clearly you aren't pro-criminal or pro-psycho, but there's a demand for a lot of things that push those boundaries.
theres a hard, straight line between legal and illegal. as far as comedy is concerned, anything they say on stage is absolutely legal.

And sometimes cultural problems can only be solved by cultural change.
i am afraid to even ask what that means.

Didn't "Milo Kannapolis" make jokes about child marriage, or touching little boys? Like, come on man. People are responsible for the type of energy they put into the world.
of course they are responsible... but who is to decide what is or what isnt an acceptable joke?

A venue hosting any comedy show owns that property too. Or are you talking about comedians literally renting out properties to do their own shows? Because I'm pretty sure, that never happens.
scenario 1: a venue hires a comedian, sells tickets, then a left wing group demands the show to be cancelled. the venue capitulates. you are agreeing this is OK because the venue has the final say. they do... but its morally wrong.
scenario 2: comedian rents out a public space, sells tickets, and a left wing group demands the show to be cancelled because he makes off-color jokes. what should happen?
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,182
theres a hard, straight line between legal and illegal. as far as comedy is concerned, anything they say on stage is absolutely legal
Idk about that. But I don't have any examples where comedy legitimately went too far and inspired some crime. Either directly or indirectly, so I will give you that yes, anything a comedian says should technically be legal. Comedy is an act, and everyone knows it's an act.

of course they are responsible... but who is to decide what is or what isnt an acceptable joke?
Good question. That goes back to what I was saying about practicality. Basically we haven't given the raging mob any real alternative to doing their rage mob thing. Plus it's not like the mob sector of the public space hasn't always been there. If this whole thing is just a rant on cancel culture, fine, I say rant away.

scenario 1: a venue hires a comedian, sells tickets, then a left wing group demands the show to be cancelled. the venue capitulates. you are agreeing this is OK because the venue has the final say. they do... but its morally wrong.
scenario 2: comedian rents out a public space, sells tickets, and a left wing group demands the show to be cancelled because he makes off-color jokes. what should happen?
Scenario 1 has to be ok because if it's not it creates a vague precedent where contracts can't be terminated. In that sense, it's not morally wrong. In fact, it's morally right to have clauses in a contract that upholds at least a basic set of professional, or technical standards.

Scenario 2 probably never happens. But I'll bite and say that if comedians got harassed out of their own show they would have some rights to seek monetary compensation in civil court. Under certain conditions of course.
 






Last edited:

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,301
My two pennies-
Pol-correctness is the Atheist Religion, it's a "religion without a mind" that tries to outdo Christianity by being more tolerant and more compassionate, but only ends up making a fool of itself because it hasn't thought things through...:)
 






UnderAlienControl

Superstar
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
5,992
Apparently locked out of Twitter. Maybe just a 3 hour shutout. Was it in response to a tweet showing the Virginia governor explaining how babies could be born and then be deaded? I posted this pic because, really, what is the difference? And it's biblical. I dunno, but my tweet button is dead.
1600474042549.png
 






Last edited:

Maes17

Star
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
4,285
This is why there is hatred.
Nobody knows how to agree to disagree.

We all vary from our experiences in life.
The expression that goes there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Well the world is mad cause they prefer their way as the absolute truth
 






Top