BoyCott those who are cancel culture advocates. Censorship is un-American and you can't support that with your dollars or with your silence.

[Alizia Tyler]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” These words in some form are commonly attributed to Voltaire and Patrick Henry. They are part of the cornerstone of American freedom. Anyone who wants to shut that down, to silence the opposition freedom of speech should not be supported. Step up and be heard with your dollars. Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech. After all this is the United States of America, for how much longer?

I have not participated on this forum for long, but so far it has been a welcome and enlightening experience.

Today is the first day of the Biden presidency and, interestingly enough, and certainly appropriately enough given the régime he serves, he has reinstated a Neo-Marxist and potentially totalitarian policy initiatives that will "launch a whole-of-government initiative to advance racial equality".

“The president-elect will sign an Executive Order beginning the work of embedding equity across federal policymaking and rooting out systemic racism and other barriers to opportunity from federal programs and institutions,” the release said.

“The Executive Order will define equity as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; LGBTQ+ persons; people with disabilities; religious minorities, persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”

In order to understand what Biden is getting at, and what this really & truly means, one has to 'deconstruct' it. But it is best to get it *right to the horse's mouth* and here is Biden revealing, precisely, where he is coming from and what in fact he serves. An 'unrelenting stream of immigration' the purpose of which is to displace and dispossess his demographic group. This is not me making an interpretive statement about what Biden is saying, this is taking what Biden says at face value.

Once you understand what Biden stands for, what he advocates, and what he works for, then it is possible to begin to make an analysis of the platform of ideas and policies that he serves. And when one does that, I suggest, one is part-way to an understanding of how this is part-and-parcel of an *ideological régime* which has just retaken power in the United States. The long and the short of it is that if you oppose what they are doing you will be described in the most vile terms.

But here I suggest an exercise in 'clear-thinking' is needed. First, one has to see and understand that the nature and the demographic composition of the United States has been intentionally modified over the course of 50 years. The very notion of a 'white America' has been vilified. 'Whiteness' has been made to seem an 'evil' thing. Something deeply wrong, indeed morally wrong. Try this out: Say to yourself outloud "I desire to live within a white nation and a white community'. In our present dispensation, I assert, this thought is disallowed. It has been made into crimethink. You could certainly advocate to 'diversity' or, as they say, the 'browning' of any agency, city, state, or community, and no one would oppose you.

Obviously, because I broach this particular observations I will be seen as suspect. But this is one of the 'tricks' as it were of their mind-manipulating tactics. To think, to speak, in certain categories places you immediately in a zone of vilification. And once you are there you can be 'canceled'.

So what I try to point out here -- I would welcome a refutation of course -- is that the bottom line right now in America, the basic ideological thrust, the defining characteristic of the ideological régime, is that it is essentially launching into a further phase of 'the war on whiteness'. The purpose of their efforts is to continue the process begun 50 years ago which is, obviously, to dilute America's original demographic. Excessive immigration, the vilification of whites and also of 'whiteness', establishing at an ideological level that to be of "European and Caucasian descent", as Biden enunciates, is the problem that must be overcome. "Folks like me" must become willing to not remain "folks like me" and must give way to "folks unlike me".

These are things that are very difficult and morally demanding to see and think about, this I admit.

 

[Rawley]

You do realize that the reason that so-called cancel culture is a thing is due to purchasing power, right?

No. Cancel culture started by trying to cancel an individual from society. Someone said something politically incorrect and he mob went of them to get them fired, lose their friends .... It's something relatively new - since the advent of social media.

Boycotts have been around as long as selling of product have been around.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No. Cancel culture started by trying to cancel an individual from society. Someone said something politically incorrect and he mob went of them to get them fired, lose their friends .... It's something relatively new - since the advent of social media.

Boycotts have been around as long as selling of product have been around.

I am sure that the various companies dropped the my pillow company due to market concerns and not due to some mob (excepting where this mob actually buys stuff)

 

[bearpoker]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” These words in some form are commonly attributed to Voltaire and Patrick Henry. They are part of the cornerstone of American freedom. Anyone who wants to shut that down, to silence the opposition freedom of speech should not be supported. Step u and be heard with your dollars. Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech. After all this is the United States of America, for how much longer?

You want to fight against cancel culture by practicing it. Good luck. In the '70s we had a saying, "fighting for peace is like ****ing for chastity". Cancel on!

 

[Rawley]

I am sure that the various companies dropped the my pillow company due to market concerns and not due to some mob (excepting where this mob actually buys stuff)

Boycotts are always market concerns driven by the mob. E.g. Sharpton threatening a boycott of ESPN. They are afraid of losing advertisers because the mob associates their product with ESPN.

 

[bearpoker]

You are doing this on purpose, right? The irony was intentional, it has to be.

I'm not so sure.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Boycotts are always market concerns driven by the mob. E.g. Sharpton threatening a boycott of ESPN. They are afraid of losing advertisers because the mob associates their product with ESPN.

Capitalism is capitalism

 

[bearpoker]

I actually loved it when the left called for a boycott on Chick-Fil-A and they had lines around the block in response, even running out of chicken. They are now like the number three fast food chain, or close to it. The more the cancel culture cancels, the more upset normal people are and will begin voting the other way again. The trouble with BOTH parties is that whenever they win an election they believe it gives them a mandate to cram their values down the throats of the 100% and Democrats are already off to a good start and Biden hasn't even been handed the keys yet. The more the cancel culture cancels the more they will be canceled themselves.

Chick-Fil-A has the best fast food. I eat there. I don't care about their politics when I'm hungry.

 

[Rawley]

Chick-Fil-A has the best fast food. I eat there. I don't care about their politics when I'm hungry.

Except on Sunday

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You want to fight against cancel culture by practicing it. Good luck. In the '70s we had a saying, "fighting for peace is like ****ing for chastity". Cancel on!

Yet what s/he said was:

Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech.

That is quite different from 'cancel culture'. If big tech companies, private businesses, corporations, and any institution begins to advocate for curtailing the First Amendment right then every citizen who genuinely defends the Constitutional values is obligated to take some action in regard to those entities.

Certainly not to do business with them if possible, but also to write letters, to communicate with government representatives, and to broadcast why it is wrong indeed to curtail free speech.

This is very very basic material.

Cancel Culture is an hysterical social movement, empowered by social media platforms, where animus and hatred and prejudice are directed to an individual for some act seen as reprehensible.

Cancel Culture is immoral. The defense of Constitutional rights is a citizen obligation.

The defense of Constitutional rights is in another category completely.

 

[bearpoker]

Except on Sunday

Gotta take the bitter with the sweet.

 

[bearpoker]

Yet what s/he said was:

That is quite different from 'cancel culture'. If big tech companies, private businesses, corporations, and any institution begins to advocate for curtailing the First Amendment right then every citizen who genuinely defends the Constitutional values is obligated to take some action in regard to those entities.

Certainly not to do business with them if possible, but also to write letters, to communicate with government representatives, and to broadcast why it is wrong indeed to curtail free speech.

This is very very basic material.

Cancel Culture is an hysterical social movement, empowered by social media platforms, where animus and hatred and prejudice are directed to an individual for some act seen as reprehensible.

Cancel Culture is immoral. The defense of Constitutional rights is a citizen obligation.

The defense of Constitutional rights is in another category completely.

Free speech is not threatened. These are private companies that have a right to enforce their TOS as they see fit.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Free speech is not threatened. These are private companies that have a right to enforce their TOS as they see fit.

You are I think mixing categories? If a given business, or corporations, in any way shape or form indicate that they oppose any Constitutional right, through any means at their disposal, they must be taken to task for this.

They are obligated to remove 'hate speech' and other expressions and to do this reasonably. They may have an obligation to limit some speech but not *as they see fit*. The line is drawn when a broadcaster engages in editing and thus becomes a 'publisher'. But I assume you know this.

Free speech and the Second Amendment are certainly under threat. In America, obviously, it has already become *illegal* to say and think certain things publically. You know this and we all know this. Let's make it conscious.

Banning, shunning, demonetizing, no-fly lists (there are some who propose these) and any activities that curtain the First Amendment right must be quickly opposed. These are its manifestations. You might be in favor of this and support it, but I do not think this is a defensible position.

While I respect your view, and there is a certain logic in what you say (about a private business having the right to control speech), you must surely be aware that the social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have become, and have been transformed into, areas that are comparable to and commensurate with 'the public square'.

Obviously -- and in a *democracy* -- the public square and the sphere of public, civic communication, is a special and a crucial area. I assume that you recognize this, though you might not want to concede the point.

By your (apparent) definition Google could limit any speech it does not like from flowing through it. Obviously this is a totally indefensible position, but try to defend it if you think you can.

Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech.

 

[Mongidig]

Are we supposed to boycott this Thread?

 

[can2man]

Trump represents the darker side of human nature. Don’t cancel him, change the narrative, hold him up in the light he deserves. Makes his image synonymous with Greed and intolerance (That’s not a stretch). For what he has done school children should weep when they see his image. Let the world know that this was a failure and never again.

 

[GolfingChef]

I beleive he advocated boycotting them- not buying their products or using their services

how is that different from not selling their products?

 

[Rawley]

how is that different from not selling their products?

I don't think it is.

 

[GolfingChef]

I don't think it is.

Yet everyone was all up in arms because a couple stores choose to not sell my pillow stuff, that is sort of what this whole thread is about

 

[ataraxia]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” These words in some form are commonly attributed to Voltaire and Patrick Henry. They are part of the cornerstone of American freedom. Anyone who wants to shut that down, to silence the opposition freedom of speech should not be supported. Step u and be heard with your dollars. Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech. After all this is the United States of America, for how much longer?

In the public arena, yes.

But private corporations can censor speech that is driving away their customers. It's no different than "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

 

[Integrityrespec]

LOL, did you just advocate censoring the censors because you don't like censorship? (by your definition of censorship of course)

I advocated not giving a corporation my money when they openly say they don't support my beliefs. They took an economic step to oppose what they don't like, I'm doing the same. I didn't say they didn't have a right to say what they want or do what they want with their money. I'll defend their right, but I don't have to finance it.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

But private corporations can censor speech that is driving away their customers. It's no different than "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

If a private corporation -- let's say a outdoor supply company -- had a comments section that, for one reason or another, became the ground of acrimonious political and social argument, then yes, it stands to reason that it could 1) edit that speech (eliminate it) or 2) terminate the comment section altogether. This makes sense. Camping stoves and sleeping bags are not the proper domain of social and political speech.

The 'public arena' -- what is it? Where does it exist? A downtown square? The street? Municipal buildings? Where is that public arena and that 'town square'?

It is obvious that both Twitter and Facebook and a host of other *platforms* have been colonized, as it were, by the public. And in that space the public carries on its social and political conversations. But too they were invited and enticed. The platform turned itself into the public sphere. It sold itself as such.

You could say: It is the right of any of those platforms to eliminate all speech that it desires simply because it is, technically, private property. But if you did that you would deliberately and also willfully fail to grasp that if this did happen it would amount to a severe harm to 'the public good' and to the 'public sphere'.

No shirt No shoes No service therefore cannot apply.

The political and jurisprudential issue has to do with the issue of when a platform such as we are talking about becomes or presents itself as a space for public communication: how shall this be regulated? How shall the laws be adapted to accommodate a new reality (a new public zone)?

 

[Integrityrespec]

No one has the right to a platform. Platforms aren’t speech. Speech is speech.

When a corporation or industry is operates much the same as a public utility and the federal government gives it legal exception to protect it from legal action, then that corporation should be held to a higher standard and in the case of Facebook and Twitter this is I believe the case. They operate much the same as a radio, television, telephone or electric power company. They provide the community with a service and are acting in the behalf of the public interest. They should follow the dictates of the government which protects them and abide by such things as the Bill of Rights.
Just my belief. Freedom of Speech is a foundation of our liberty. A company denying it based on political bias is antagonistic to that belief

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Trump represents the darker side of human nature. Don’t cancel him, change the narrative, hold him up in the light he deserves. Makes his image synonymous with Greed and intolerance (That’s not a stretch). For what he has done school children should weep when they see his image. Let the world know that this was a failure and never again.

What if this is your *projection* onto Trump? Not an accurate description of Trump necessarily, but a statement that reveals something about *you* or those you (seem to) speak for?

When I want to access the darker and stranger aspects of human nature . . . I turn to Melville and The Ambiguities!

 

[Allan]

My favorite golf balls are made in a very liberal state. (Titleist ProV1)

I seriously doubt that I'll be boycotting the brand any time soon.

I've used Titleist everything since they started supporting the late Moe Norman. He couldn't really do anything for them in terms of sponsorship, they just did it to help him out.

 

[Integrityrespec]

You want to fight against cancel culture by practicing it. Good luck. In the '70s we had a saying, "fighting for peace is like ****ing for chastity". Cancel on!

So you are suggesting I must financially support a corporation that I do not agree with? Well then I suggest all those that didn't support Trump are in the wrong for not supporting Trump because they disagreed with him. Everyone should have had to vote for Trump.