Obama: “Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself. ‘Cause, ‘Man, you see how woke I was? I called you out’.” “That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change.”
RWCC: Sorry, Barack, you’re cancelled. You are part of the Left, and the Left supports cancel culture.
Biden: Black Lives Matter protestors have a concern about systemic racism that is well taken. But property crimes or acts of violence in support of BLM is still criminal, and should be punished by law.
RWCC: Sorry, Joe, you’re cancelled. You are part of the Left, and the Left excuses violence and looting on behalf of the causes it supports. It is only crimes on behalf of Donald Trump that are inexcusable.
Biden: I oppose Medicare for All. I defended my opposition to it in the primary campaign against its leading advocate, Bernie Sanders.
RWCC: Sorry, Joe, you’re cancelled. You are part of the Left, and the Left supports Medicare for All.
Biden: I oppose defunding the police. We need to fund the police more in order to better equip them to handle sensitive and difficult racial situations.
RWCC: Sorry, Joe, you’re cancelled. You are part of the Left, and the Left wants to defund the police.
Biden: Even though I support a woman’s right to choose abortion as a matter of law, as a Catholic I nevertheless believe abortion to be morally wrong.
RWCC: Sorry Joe, you’re cancelled. You are part of the left, and the left loves abortion, and wants women to shout their abortions.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
I keep hearing Biden (and Obama, and other Democrats) attacked for what they don't believe, and have said they don't believe, because we know they're on THE LEFT and hence if you vote for one of them, you must somehow support everything THE LEFT supports, even if you don't support it and the don't support it. Why?
56 comments:
Let me go back and find all the blog posts here questioning why the left did and does that to Republicans and conservatives.
Checking. Checking. Checking.
While I check for these blog posts that no doubt exist - because bad behavior doesn't get excused simply because it's targeted at the "correct" side - I can go ahead and answer your question. It applies to both sides.
One, we live in time of decreasing party cooperation. The other side is viewed as the enemy or, at least, fundamentally flawed.
Two, because our side is right and their side is wrong, that means anything short of total victory is a danger to the country.
Three, the letter after the politician's name identifies their beliefs based on our caricature of that party's value system.
Four, the politician belongs to the other side. They lie about everything. And it's a big problem when the other side lies.
And five, EVEN IF a candidate personally opposes their own party's more vocal and extreme element, they will still pander to, and thus enable, that element in order to secure votes, because of the moral imperative to keep the other side out of power. And an enabler is no better than a participant.
In other words, you want people on the right to trust someone like Obama or Biden? Stop only attacking one side. Both sides do bad, so only pointing out bad behavior on the other side does nothing but widen the divide. It confirms what your side thinks, and it makes the other side dismiss you as a hypocrite.
Why? Because that’s what we’re told should be done. The left has been doing it without much pushback so why not continue - or is the left doing something wrong too? Let us know.
I'm lost.
I thought the goal of cancelling someone was to silence them for wrong opinions and/or remove their source of income. Not merely publicly disagreeing with them.
Good point bmiller. “Cancelling” isn’t saying in public that you disagree with someone. It involves being banned, arrested, penalized and/or fired. Nobody has canceled Biden or Obama.
Yet.
All this hand wringing over "cancel culture" is just ridiculous. CC has been part of human nature ever since Og the caveman refused to say the name of Grog the tree dweller, because on Og's opinion, Grog is a dick.
When the Soviet Union fell, they toppled all the statues of Lenin. Cancel culture?
When Nazi Germany was conquered, they blew up all the swastikas on buildings. Cancel culture?
When the US overran Baghdad, they knocked over the statue of Sadaam Hussein. Cancel Culture?
When we got sick and tired of white supremacy in this country, we removed the statues of Confederate generals. Cancel culture?
When a young woman is dumped by her boyfriend, she tears up his picture on her nightstand. Cancel culture?
I think the type of cancel culture many refer to is "I don't like what Victor said on his blog so I am going to organize a campaign to harass his employer until they fire him" type of behavior.
Kevin,
I think "OK Boomer" is the appropriate response ;-)
But I'm certainly wrong.
The really appropriate response is "OK Lefty".
When Lefties get the cancel treatment it will be entertaining to watch the reaction.
Kevin,
I think the type of cancel culture many refer to is "I don't like what Victor said on his blog so I am going to organize a campaign to harass his employer until they fire him" type of behavior.
That rarely happens.
bmiller,
When Lefties get the cancel treatment it will be entertaining to watch the reaction.
You mean, like what happened to Kapernick?
“That rarely happens”
Murder in a small town rarely happens.
That rarely happens.
Happened in my town last year. A woman said something that left-wing protesters got on film and they ran straight to her employer and got her fired because they threatened to establish a connection between her and the company.
You mean, like what happened to Kapernick?
Were his controversial actions at work, and did his employers have a right to be concerned with the impact of his at-work behavior on their product?
Kevin,
Happened in my town last year. A woman said something that left-wing protesters got on film and they ran straight to her employer and got her fired because they threatened to establish a connection between her and the company.
Were his controversial actions at work, and did his employers have a right to be concerned with the impact of his at-work behavior on their product?
So, there's really no difference here? I agree. People have always been canceled, and it will always happen.
In fact, just recently left-wing activist RFK Jr. was canceled from Twitter. I may have missed the uproar about that from left-wing commentators.
TJ Ducklo (White House press aide) just got suspended, and the leftists are saying he needs to be fired.
I wonder if bmiller will say this is completely different "the cancel treatment", and so that's why leftys aren't protesting.
Unbelievable. The Vatican will fire anyone who doesn’t get the vaccine. No religious exemption??
https://www.ksby.com/news/national/coronavirus/vatican-requiring-all-employees-to-be-vaccinated-or-face-termination
There should not be any exemption for stupidity.
Bodily autonomy is only good when the unborn are dying in its name.
Who is in favor of "bodily autonomy"? Certainly not me!
Who is in favor of "bodily autonomy"? Certainly not me!
Excellent. I will be over later to perform experiments upon you. Glad you do not object!
Sounds like an ugly job.
Science requires sacrifice.
Kevin,
Bodily autonomy is only good when the unborn are dying in its name.
I promise I will not bring topic "a" into this discussion. So, outside of that:
Does bodily autonomy mean I have the right to endanger others?
Does bodily autonomy mean I have a right to a certain job?
“Does bodily autonomy mean I have the right to endanger others?”
Normal social interaction isn’t dangerous to anyone’s health. Being exposed to ‘dangerous things’ builds a robust immune system. Isolation is unhealthy.
A virus with a 99.8% survival rate isn’t dangerous to human life. If that’s dangerous to human life then everything is dangerous to human life. If that’s the standard then the bodily autonomous act of driving cars should be stopped immediately.
Does bodily autonomy mean I have the right to endanger others?
Does bodily autonomy mean I have a right to a certain job?
From a purely practical standpoint, it can be said that society has a vested interest in an enforced vaccination program.
From a philosophical standpoint, if the government can tell you what you will inject into your body with or without your consent in the name of the "greater good", then what else can the government require you to do for the "greater good"? I'm not saying I oppose vaccinations, but the line would be drawn at whatever society tolerates, which is a terrifying thought.
In other words, I don't think "endangering others" is in of itself the standard at which point the government should have a mandate to start imposing on people.
As for private employers, they can make their own rules up to a point. I think there comes a time when a company can become too big and should no longer be treated as private, but that's another topic.
TL;DR “It’s just your freedom”
It's just two weeks...
It's just six feet...
It's just a mask...
It's just non-essential businesses...
It's just six months...
It's just church...
It's just Easter...
It's just school...
It's just non-essential travel...
It's just Thanksgiving...
It's just Christmas...
It's just a vaccine...
It's just two masks...
It's just two vaccines...
It's just till 2022...
It's just three masks...
It's just three vaccines...
It's just an anal swab...
It's just a vaccine passport...
It's just a checkpoint...
It's just an isolation camp...
It's just till there's no more viruses...
And your point is?
US combat deaths in WWII - 407,000
US combat deaths in Vietnam - 58,000
US deaths so far from COVID 19 - 467,000
(all figures rounded to nearest thousand)
So we have already lost more American lives from this pandemic than we did in World War II and Vietnam combined. We are suffering a 9/11 scale catastrophe EVERY DAY.
And you don't think this is worth a few preventative measures, at the cost of some temporary inconveniences?
There are some good points on this subject in this article, Churches Should Mandate Vaccines for People Coming Back to Mass.
“ And you don't think this is worth a few preventative measures, at the cost of some temporary inconveniences?”
I am taking many preventive measures. What I’m not doing is taking the unnecessary government-mandated, super-extra, freedom-stifling preventative measures like wearing 2 masks, obsessively sanitizing, avoiding friends/family/hugs and taking the jab.
SteveK,
Are you following the latest guideline of wearing pantyhose over your mask?
Personally I've always worn pantyhose. Just not on my head yet.
I have followed all the guidelines so far, even though many of them do not especially apply to me, due to my having been in near total isolation from all other human beings for the past year. But on those rare occasions I do venture outside of my basement, I wear a mask and disposable surgical gloves, maintain "social distance", wash my hands for 20 seconds in hot soapy water, and thoroughly wash my mask after each use.
I got my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine already, and will get my 2nd on March 5th (a personal holiday, being the day Stalin died in 1953). 30 days after the 2nd dose (Sunday, April 4th), I will celebrate by attending Mass for the 1st time in more than a year.
Better go to confession first. Ya'll got a lot of splaining to do.
My conscience is clear.
I mean confession to a Catholic priest. Not your local party functionary.
SteveK,
Normal social interaction isn’t dangerous to anyone’s health. Being exposed to ‘dangerous things’ builds a robust immune system. Isolation is unhealthy.
Normal social interaction, when you are carrying a potentially deadly disease, can be fatal. That's why we developed quarantine. Vaccination is how you prevent carrying a deadly disease without realizing it.
A virus with a 99.8% survival rate isn’t dangerous to human life.
0.2% of the current population would kill more people than all the atheist regimes you theocrats love to go on about.
If that’s dangerous to human life then everything is dangerous to human life. If that’s the standard then the bodily autonomous act of driving cars should be stopped immediately.
The risk of getting a vaccine is much lower than that of driving a car.
Kevin,
From a purely practical standpoint, it can be said that society has a vested interest in an enforced vaccination program.
From a philosophical standpoint, if the government can tell you what you will inject into your body with or without your consent in the name of the "greater good", then what else can the government require you to do for the "greater good"? I'm not saying I oppose vaccinations, but the line would be drawn at whatever society tolerates, which is a terrifying thought.
I don't support enforced vaccination, either. I do think employers have the right to hire only the vaccinated.
I think there comes a time when a company can become too big and should no longer be treated as private, but that's another topic.
Also fair, and the Vatican itself is a government, not just a corporation.
SteveK,
What I’m not doing is ... taking the jab.
So, you're the sort of free-loader who will let other people take small risks for your protection, without taking small risks for theirs. Just another conservative who doesn't care who gets hurt, as long as it's not you.
One Brow,
These people are pro-life only up until birth. After that, it's "the devil take the hindmost!"
" If the government can tell you what you will inject into your body with or without your consent in the name of the "greater good", then what else can the government require you to do for the "greater good"?"
The government can draft you into the Army, and then order your autonomous body into combat where you have a good chance of getting killed or of being maimed for life. All without your consent, and all for the "greater good".
Lol, One Brow
@bmiller
“I mean confession to a Catholic priest. Not your local party functionary.”
Forgive me Madam Speaker for I have sinned against the party?
bmiller has the sentiment correct, but the wrong party.
"Forgive me, Dear Leader, for I have not demonstrated sufficient sycophancy!"
I do admit I'm guilty of sinning.
I've teased elderly liberals to the extent that I have caused them to sin. Too bad that priests have cut back on the times they hear confessions even more now with Covid than the measly 1 hour on Saturday before Covid.
Prior to the pandemic, there were two priests at Our Lady of the Holy Rosary parish in Baltimore hearing confessions for one hour prior to each scheduled Mass, and one priest at 6 PM every weeknight. I guess we Baltimoreans must sin more than other places!
Boy Howdy!
The government can draft you into the Army, and then order your autonomous body into combat where you have a good chance of getting killed or of being maimed for life. All without your consent, and all for the "greater good".
Yep, nothing makes me favor the government like dying in a nonessential war I don't believe in for some politician's gain!
Odd that someone who loves protesting war would use the draft of an example why we should stop thinking and just obey when the government talks.
But if you're really serious, then you should buy a supply of L'eggs and start wearing them on your head.
"would use the draft of an example why we should stop thinking and just obey"
No, I used it in response to Kevin's question, If the government can tell you what you will inject into your body with or without your consent in the name of the "greater good", then what else can the government require you to do for the "greater good"?
There was no judgement implied or intended of the rightness or wrongness of the action, and still less the idea that we should "stop thinking and just obey" - simply a statement of "what else could the government require you to do".
Question asked - question answered.
SteveK,
Lol, One Brow
By all means, laugh at the dead and crippled.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the distinct impression that several of the posters to this site believe that all governmental actions are inherently evil by nature, and that the government has no rights over the individual.
Such a view is one extreme of two opposite philosophies:
1. The individual has no rights over and against the state. This is totalitarianism.
2. The state has no rights over and against the individual. This is anarchy.
I reject both extremes. By temperament, my preferred form of government is feudalism, but there's darn little chance of that ever coming back. So I'm stuck with liberal democracy as the best thing going today.
The greatest atrocities committed in human history are done so by totalitarian governments. This means that there is a rational basis to be skeptical of any claim by any government that it needs to expand its control of absolutely anything.
Of course the pendulum can swing too far the other direction, but I don't notice much of a trend of government losing power once they achieve it.
Sounds like someone has been reading the wrong things leading to wrong-think. Listen to the NYT. Critical thinking is bad for you.
The link is behind a paywall. Can't get to it.
Don't worry. You're in no danger ;-)
The NYT “expert” is relying on Google and Wikipedia to fact check. Lololol
“If this is not a claim where I have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second and, before going further, just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page”
SteveK.
Don't tell me you're one of those Critical Thinkers😱
Here's two paragraphs from the NYT editorial bmiller quoted:
It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information. Influenced by the research of Sam Wineburg, a professor at Stanford, and Sarah McGrew, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, Mr. Caulfield argued that the best way to learn about a source of information is to leave it and look elsewhere, a concept called lateral reading.
For instance, imagine you were to visit Stormfront, a white supremacist message board, to try to understand racist claims in order to debunk them. “Even if you see through the horrible rhetoric, at the end of the day you gave that place however many minutes of your time,” Mr. Caulfield said. “Even with good intentions, you run the risk of misunderstanding something, because Stormfront users are way better at propaganda than you. You won’t get less racist reading Stormfront critically, but you might be overloaded by information and overwhelmed.
Later:
SIFT has its limits. It’s designed for casual news consumers, not experts or those attempting to do deep research.
This editorial is saying that critical thinking should also involve the skills of deciding from whom we should gather information, and who we should not bother with. It's not a bad point.
Post a Comment