For sure. In any other subject (than politics and religion), the suggestion that one solution fits all problems wouldn’t be taken seriously.
3 Likes
Ditto. I think pluralism is a rational way of thinking. In my opinion one should avoid the true believer in politics as in religion. IMO such people are naive at best, dangerous at worst.
A favourite poem is never far from my mind:
OZYMANDIAS
"I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”***
Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Capitalism is only one man made system. It will fall eventually. This may be a good thing. I doubt it will happen in my life time, and that suits me. Capitalism with a nanny state suits me just fine in my old age, thank you very much.
*** it is my understanding that Ozymandias is Ramses The Great.
1 Like
This is just nonsense.
The Clinton administration brought in the Community Re-investment act as a way to make sure members of the black/other minority communities would no longer be discriminated against for loans or finance.
Wall Street then did what Wall Street does best which is find every way it could to exploit the situation with outrageous behaviour. The crises showed a need for far more government oversight on the banks not less.
1 Like
Free speech is one of the most important pillars of a modern democratic society. However, the principal of free speech is only tested when others say things we don’t like. If we allow a society where opinions we dislike may be suppressed, how will our voices be heard when we have something to say with which others disagree? But there is another reason for not being drawn in to a cancel culture.
Accepting that there will always be those whose ideas are contrary to our own and who harbour a world view which is at odds with everything we hold dear, isn’t it better that they are allowed to speak openly? The alternative is to have such views underground. They will still spread, often simply by virtue of their secrecy (the reasoning of conspiracy theories is that anyone who denies the theory is either a fool or part of the conspiracy) and we will be unable to counter them until it is too late. Far better, surely, to expose such views to the air in order that sensible discussion might expose them.
Agreed. But there is a great deal of difference between holding ideas that differ and blatantly denying or fabricating the facts.
Fabrications and blatant denials of behaviour even when recorded multiple times on various media types is now an accepted norm. Not only in politics. Maybe attend some district or magistrates courts, it is hilarious when video/cctv/recorded evidence is presented and accepted as a true record and the accused still denies culpability.
You can see where serial liars in politics get their following.
I agree, but because we do have freedom of speech, such liars are ultimately exposed as such. Men will always follow demagogues because such men know how to push the buttons of the mob and how to tap into people’s anger and fear. Free speech comes with responsibility and where those lies are exposed they should always be challenged, even prosecuted, but we must not stop people from speaking.
You are conflating “stopping people from speaking” and preventing deliberate dishonesty and hate speech (which relies on dishonesty) . There is a difference.
I agree, there is a difference. My initial comment was in answer to the original question about cancel culture. However, I maintain that it is better to hear and understand what someone believes than have such views working insidiously in secret. If an individual’s speech breaks the law, he must be prosecuted. If an individual’s speech is hateful and or dishonest, he must be exposed and challenged with truth. But once we reach the point where someone may be prevented from speaking, simply because what he says is offensive to us, we are clearing the way for our own voices to be suppressed.
Take the case of Trump. He has been spouting lies and divisive BS for years but if we had a society that allowed a cancel culture and the restriction of free speech, had he won the election, he would be in a position to suppress any voice raised against him.
This ideology is commendable, but in reality doesn’t necessarily work.
As President, in that office, he wanted to remove tik-tok (suppress) and the BLM voices and any voice contrary to “his” was propaganda (fake news).
In the Presidental office he convinced millions that the election was stolen. A lie. A biggly lie, however it was from the President, and “insiders” (Q) so in the face of repeatable facts and demonstrated evidence (recounts and court decisions) he clung to his claims and his followers also (adopting the “patriot” for themselves only) and worked towards a Coup.
“Free speech”, words, communications - have real life consequences. It is a tool we evolved and has served our species well (or for detriment).
“Free speech” is not unlimited. Accountability is required. Responsible “speech”, debate, an ability to change one’s mind when presented with new or evidenced information…
This forum sets out community rules and limits “free speech”…
1 Like
While you make a valid point about free speech, that I’ve made myself many times, free speech has and does have consequences. Defamation is the best example, where one can say something publicly, one may be held to account afterward.
Cancel culture is a worrying phenomenon, but so is the eager and relentless way unscrupulous opportunists like Trump, falsely try to play the victim everytime they are called on a lie.
Without the need for fair and balanced reporting, news networks that would once have prided themselves on getting to the truth no matter what, become megaphones for opportunistic liars like Trump.
Political ideologies will always separate people, but that makes the truth even more important to ensure that complex issues are presented to us as fairly, and as objectively as possible.
Does anyone think the truth is less important to those idiots who bought Trump’s lies, than it is to anyone here? Their outrage suggests otherwise…
Welcome to Atheist Republic PaulDavisCooke. Although my sympathies are in line with your intent, the results do not match this ideal goal. If that was true, then the flat earth society would have died off many years ago.
The sad truth is that we have ignorance and stupidity, and sometimes bad ideas do not die on the vine.
Exactly.
For example, this is concerning to me and personally, I would have approached it differently (as a solution)…
APU would have had Russell Peters do the “voicing”
AND I would have just hired a black/brown/blue person to voice a “white” character with a Southern Accent.
In other words - talented people with voices and accents etc COME in all colors…
Sorry 
BUT cultural and country and group dynamics can be funny and treasured.
As a Ukrainian (heritage) my puzzle I’ve been working on is a peice of paper that read
“How do you keep a Ukrainian busy? Turn over”
I turned it over - and had to turn it over again.
One day, I’ll figure it out…
First learn to laugh at yourself…
Can I post or am I rambling… good! Just checking first. Saves me a “work-around”.
We have hate speech laws in 
. Again, a matter of debate, but pretty much agreed upon on our society.
For example… David Icke can not speak in person in Canada (hold his 2-3 day long 7-8 hr teaching session of “step by step” reptilian overlords theory).
Can I, as a Canadian, access the information? You bet! I have listened to him directly through his process and his speech to students at an England University. I can order his books.
Access is always available BUT we have as a society deemed it “harmful” and have limited him personally to our citizens so his “mental virus” is reduced. Kinda like wearing a mask with a real virus 
- helps stop the spread.
I completely agree and that was really my point. Trump wanted to silence his critics and perpetuate his own lies but because we value free speech, he was unable to do so. If we have a society that allows those in power to decide who can and cannot speak, i.e. a cancel culture, we risk another Trump succeeding in shutting out any and all dissent.
However, you are right that freedom comes with responsibility and there must be rules. Accountability is the beginning of that. I do not advocate total freedom. I live in the UK and we had a radical Muslim preaching the downfall of the west and asking people to rise up and fight. He was arrested and deported to the US where he was tried and convicted of other crimes.
There must always be rules but that is vey different to a cancel culture.
In the USA, free speech is typically a reference to the state punishing you for your speech. Cancel culture is just a new name for consumers voting with their money. It isn’t new; it isn’t radical; and it isn’t an attack on free speech.
My wife has spent 30 years refusing to buy Nestle products because of their past behavior. That is cancel culture. It is an attempt to change the world with peaceful means (simply not buying the product, or buying it from someone else).
1 Like
I did the same with a baby formula that I found out had pesticides! Assholes…
My caution was in the “firing” of talented voice people because they aren’t the right color or the joking of a cultural stereotype (comedy) becoming an offensive. That kind of “cancel” drifts to close to censorship or creating a society walking on “eggshells” not stepping outside their boundaries.
I totally endorse your wife’s actions but that is not cancel culture, which has nothing to do with consumer’s preference.
Cancel culture is about when people are invited to speak at a university or other venue but their appearance is cancelled by the organisers because of complaints regarding that person’s views. It is directly linked to the idea that free speech only becomes relevant when someone says something with which you disagree.
I’m not sure how the state can punish you for your speech but I don’t live in the US, I only visit regularly to be with my gf. Perhaps it’s something I haven’t encountered.
CENSORSHIP in any form is un-american and should be denounced as Fascism or Communism. It’s the first step in taking away our freedom and our rights, and the fact that it is being done by privately owned companies with the blessing of the retards in D.C. only make it much worse. Trump gave us the greatest economy in U.S. history, signed several peace-deals in europe and the middle-east, and made us energy independent. Don’t believe everything you hear in this giant “echo-chamber”, and especially don’t believe everything you think.
Being older I just related it to a more modern form of boycott, BUT with the Information Age a newer form accompanying it…
Universities should be havens for free speech and debate, otherwise how do these students as adults know how to think critically of ideas, whether they like them or not. How do they assess how that person “got to” that point for knowledge sake?
1 Like
Ditto.
My, my - such a great, great, biggly debater you are!!!
are you Antifa???