Originally Posted by civilservant

Because Bill Gates is of course planning world domination. ......

Originally Posted by kimilseung

Not sure its the best place to discuss cancel culture either but as it gets a mention here.....

"Cancel culture" and "identity politics" are being presented to us as if they are new phenomena, when they have been with us us for decades, centuries, millennia. What we have, is similar to the way the privileged are seeing moves towards equality as being oppression. We are seeing a slight tilt of the cancel fulcrum from one form to another from. It is the conservative sphere that has taken up the use of both phrases, even if not the coinage. It is them that are singing this song, that they have never sung before, when it was happening before their eyes, their entire lives, their parents lives and their grandparents and on and on.
Women being fired for getting pregnant is/was cancel culture
Gay people having beards for fear of their livelihood and/or safety is/was cancel culture
Transgender individuals only going to certain specific places is/was cancel culture
Jeremy Thorpe was cancel culture
Everything before Margaret Thatcher being PM was cancel culture
Alan Turing was cancel culture
George Eliot was cancel culture
Sally Hemings was cancel culture
Galileo was cancel culture
But we can pretend this tiny shift is a completely new phenomena, and blame those not like us for it.

Originally Posted by Shard

Not really. Well, Galileo honourably excepted. The difference here is that we are all now networked. There's certainly always been a resistance to new ideas or new ways of being, but in the past this was hashed out in small poltical / educational circles, and extreme views (on either side of debate) would evaporate with little impact. Now, because of the interconnectedness, freedom of speech, and to some extent thought, is being policed by groups promoting their own interests. The fact that elite journalists, authors, media people, professors can face career implosion simply by being on the wrong side of a debate breeds a very fragile democracy. Cancel culture is the victory of the mob. It's far more insidious that slow moving cultural and social norms.

Originally Posted by Shard

Not really. Well, Galileo honourably excepted. The difference here is that we are all now networked. There's certainly always been a resistance to new ideas or new ways of being, but in the past this was hashed out in small poltical / educational circles, and extreme views (on either side of debate) would evaporate with little impact. Now, because of the interconnectedness, freedom of speech, and to some extent thought, is being policed by groups promoting their own interests. The fact that elite journalists, authors, media people, professors can face career implosion simply by being on the wrong side of a debate breeds a very fragile democracy. Cancel culture is the victory of the mob. It's far more insidious that slow moving cultural and social norms.

Originally Posted by kimilseung

I hear your appeal to limit the definition of cancel culture, to fit just what is new, what affects the interests of a few. but, I propose to use a definition that is the use of hegemony to limit exposure to the wider culture of peoples, cultures, thoughts, attitudes, ways of life. Its always been bad for democracy, in the past the opposing voices were unheard, unacknowledged, and un-acted upon. What is different today is that the voice of those who oppose it, seems to be clearly heard, quite loudly. Today's communications mean that they do have somewhere else to go, to continue to be a part of the culture.

Originally Posted by Shard

They are heard, and often by the majority, but that does not necessarily mean their arguments are correct. The only way to determine if those arguement are correct is to have frank debate about the arguments, and that cannot be had if the cultural forces are such that whomever questions the mob can be easily silenced (or cancelled). That's the issue here. Transgenderism if a case in point. Plenty to discuss there, but try discussing it without hysterical accusations and demands for retribution for though. So I don't know where you're going with this? You can't be suggesting that a culture of offence and effective cancellation is the way forward?? Note that in opposing cancel culture, there is no insistance that those struggling with rights should not be heard (as in the case Turing and others that you listed) far from it, opposing cancel culture is asserting freedom of discussion. The mass of the network loudly challenges the hegemony, and that should be enough, without demanding its silence.

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

Seems a bit harsh

"Woman faces possible life in prison after allegedly buying paint for BLM protest"

Originally Posted by Pulaski

If arrested for "joint enterprise" in a riot situation, the punishments may well seem harsh. I presume that the "buying of paint" evidences premediation of criminal mischief.

One of the key purposes of custodial sentences is the message to discourage others from participating in similar crimes, and the vast majority of law-abiding citizens benefit from such "discouragement".

Originally Posted by caretaker

We'll see how that works in this case.

Originally Posted by Pulaski

If arrested for "joint enterprise" in a riot situation, the punishments may well seem harsh. I presume that the "buying of paint" evidences premediation of criminal mischief.

One of the key purposes of custodial sentences is the message to discourage others from participating in similar crimes, and the vast majority of law-abiding citizens benefit from such "discouragement".

Rioting has a long history in the UK that pre-dates the independence of the United States, and therefore passed directly into US law before independence. Rioting was taken very seriously, and if The Riot Act had been "read" (announced in public, at the scene of riot/ potential riot) then the gloves came off and allowed whatever "law enforcement" was at the scene (the Riot Act pre-dated the formation of what we would recognise as a "police force") to use pretty much any available force to disperse or stop the rioting, In many respects the Riot Act seems to me to be similar to anti-piracy laws. Extremely harsh and designed to discourage others from doing it.

Originally Posted by Pulaski

Indeed, but I suspect it will be fairly effective in discouraging middle class white women. ..... She also seems to have confused her constitutional right to "protest" with causing premeditated criminal damage.

Originally Posted by zzrmark

Hence the folks of my (our?) generation knowing they were in deep doo-doo if mother said she was about to 'read the riot act', possibly more applicable to those of us that grew up in the large family broods often associated with Roman Catholics. ....