Cancel Culture

[PaxNurgle]

I sure am tired of Cancel Culture. Although, maybe not what you think it is.

Easter 2020- CANCELLED.
Local Music fest, March 2020- POSTPONED.
Countless other concerts- CANCELLED.
Goddess Fest- CANCELLED
Memorial day- CANCELLED
Wedding and family reunion plans- CANCELLED
Planned trip to Europe- CANCELLED
Summer activities- CANCELLED
Countless birthday parties-CANCELLED
4th of July- CANCELLED
Hyde Park Street Fair- CANCELLED
Annual Art Festival- CANCELLED
Re-scheduled Local Music Fest from last March- POSTPONED AGAIN
Halloween-CANCELLED
Thanksgiving-CANCELLED
Countless Christmas parties- CANCELLED
Christmas-CANCELLED (Geez, the Grinch really DID win one, finally.)
New Years- CANCELLED
Re-Re-scheduled music fest from October, originally from a year ago- Finally CANCELLED

I could go on, but...you get the point

I am FED UP with hearing the word "Cancelled." Enough with this crap. We've been putting up with this for a year now. I don't deny the seriousness of the disease, and the sacrifices that the medical community has been making, and I even supported the lock downs in the beginning, in the mistaken belief that such short-term sacrifices would work, and that cancel culture would soon be behind us. They didn't work. So now, we're all holding out hopes for the vaccine. If, after next fall when everyone is vaccinated that wants to be, the powers that be STILL want to impose this Cancel Culture on us, I suspect that there will be major pushback from all segments, and not just the usual right-wing nuts.

Because even the most liberal socialist of progressives will eventually tire of all this, and will want to be able to have Christmas, go to parties, travel, and see family again. Believe it or not.

 

[Dribble]

I fully support allowing Republicans and ignorant people having the right to kill themselves...let those that are not Republicans nor ignorant that want to be vaccinated get vaccinated first and open the country.

 

[CornusKousa]

I sure am tired of Cancel Culture. Although, maybe not what you think it is.

Yea you seem pretty pro-cancel culture.

Because even the most liberal socialist of progressives will eventually tire of all this,

You think progressives are liberal!!! LOL

They started calling themselves "progressive" because they knew they weren't at all liberal and couldn't keep that façade.

Totalitarian control freaks who worship at the alter of federal authority and control??

Are NOT liberals.

I fully support allowing Republicans and ignorant people having the right to kill themselves...let those that are not Republicans nor ignorant that want to be vaccinated get vaccinated first and open the country.

LOL ya'll are too late, country is open/inge bubba.

 

[MarriedMumbaiMom]

Shocking

 

[RobDownSouth]

You think progressives are liberal!!! LOL

Progressives are liberal, your continual yammering to the contrary notwithstanding. Deal with it.

 

[CornusKousa]

Progressives are liberal, your continual yammering to the contrary notwithstanding. Deal with it.

How are they liberal Rob?

You can't name a SINGLE position they are ideologically liberal about. Not one.

That's why every single bit of "progress" you want ONLY comes at the end of federal gun to all 50 states heads and no other way.

You can't deride, detest and condemn any and sort of liberty and 100% always advocate centralized federal authority and control over EVERYTHING and call yourself a liberal.

I mean you can, but all the actual liberals along with everyone who paid attention to their HS civics class will just laugh at you Deal with it.

 

[Dribble]

I am a liberal and progressive. I believe voting should be easier...not harder. I believe in districts having the smallest possible perimeter. I believe each voter should have the same representation across states.

Boy...that was easy...

 

[Dribble]

I believe more money should be spent on taking care and educating our citizens than is spent on defense


This is a really easy game

 

[CornusKousa]

I am a liberal and progressive.

Are you also a free market communist?? LOL

I believe voting should be easier...not harder. I believe in districts having the smallest possible perimeter. I believe each voter should have the same representation across states.

Boy...that was easy...

So you're pro-democracy.

Democracy isn't liberalism.....in fact it rarely supports and is far more often than not illiberal and authoritarian.

That's why our founding fathers restricted and put checks on democracy at every level to make it very difficult to centralize and exert authority against liberty.

From the EC all the way down to the fact that states exist...all a check on centralized authority that you and other "progressives" absolutely have to have to get any of the "progress" you advocate.

Centralized authority and control.....is NOT liberalism.

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

I believe more money should be spent on taking care and educating our citizens than is spent on defense

This is a really easy game

Ah!!..... how you would like the federal government to spend other peoples money and centralize federal control over how all kids are educated is peak authoritarianism.

Again, "Progressive".......if your politics involve centralized authority pulling the guns out against individual liberty for any other reason other than to protect it???

That's NOT liberal.

 

[TJX]

I fully support allowing Republicans and ignorant people having the right to kill themselves...let those that are not Republicans nor ignorant that want to be vaccinated get vaccinated first and open the country.

You’re a class act. Don’t ever let anyone tell you different.

 

[siobhancan99]

Liberalism and Progressiveism often interlap but aren't the same thing. Expanded voting rights, for instance are liberal and progressive. Banning certain kinds of speech is not liberal, but it is progressive.


Some right of center positions are more liberal that progressivism. It is folly, however, to say that all Liberal positions are inherently better than all illeberal positions. like anything else, blind adherence to a political doctrine is as bad or worse than fanatical religion. Sometimes, liberalism is not the answer, sometimes it is.

 

[CornusKousa]

Liberalism and Progressiveism often interlap but aren't the same thing.

Expanded voting rights, for instance are liberal and progressive.

Where?? There isn't a SINGLE "progressive" position that doesn't advocate if not require centralized authority and control to force it.

Not one.

Democracy =/= liberalism.

Some right of center positions are more liberal that progressivism. It is folly, however, to say that all Liberal positions are inherently better than all illeberal positions. like anything else, blind adherence to a political doctrine is as bad or worse than fanatical religion. Sometimes, liberalism is not the answer, sometimes it is.

That may be true, but this is the USA, and we are a distinctly liberal nation...so while liberalism might not always be the answer? It' is always American AF...and authoritarianism (of which progressive policies are) never will be.

 

[siobhancan99]

Where?? There isn't a SINGLE "progressive" position that doesn't advocate if not require centralized authority and control to force it.

Not one.

Democracy =/= liberalism.



That may be true, but this is the USA, and we are a distinctly liberal nation...so while liberalism might not always be the answer? It' is always American AF...and authoritarianism (of which progressive policies are) never will be.

Your first position is moronic. if any and all restriction were inherently illeberal all governmental and societal systems would be inherently illeberal as restriction is their raison detre. The net effect of having a central policy that expands voting rights is increased liberty, and in increasing liberty it is itself liberal.

Your second position has some merit. the tyranny of the masses is no less tyranny for being popular. THat is true. its true in an "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way though.

 

[CornusKousa]

Your first position is moronic. if any and all restriction were inherently illeberal all governmental and societal systems would be inherently illeberal as restriction is their raison detre.

You're conflating anarchism with liberalism....a regular tactic of dishonesty from "progressives", or maybe just innocent ignorance.

Either way liberalism =/= no government systems or regulations, that's anarchism.

The net effect of having a central policy that expands voting rights is increased liberty, and in increasing liberty it is itself liberal.

You're still conflating democracy with liberalism

They are not the same thing. One is a political system, the other is an ideology and they are not inherently tied to each other.

The history of democracy going all the way back to the ancient Greeks is that democracy lends itself to being HIGHLY authoritarian in nearly if not every case of its practice. And it's still that way today.... two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner = democracy.

Your second position has some merit. the tyranny of the masses is no less tyranny for being popular. THat is true. its true in an "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way though.

No, it's just true.

 

[siobhancan99]

You're conflating anarchism with liberalism....a regular tactic of dishonesty from "progressives".

Liberalism =/= no government systems or regulations.



You're still conflating democracy with liberalism

They are not the same thing. One is a political system, the other is an ideology and they are not inherently tied to each other.

The history of democracy going all the way back to the ancient Greeks is that democracy lends itself to being HIGHLY authoritarian in nearly if not every case of its practice. And it's still that way today.... two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner = democracy.



No, it's just true.

I am not confusing liberalism and anarchism. if you read what you said, idiot, you will see that you claimed that central regulation to enforce expanded voting rights was illiberal. you were the one conflating anarchy and liberalism.

My position was that a government that increases liberty is liberal despite the fact that some coercion was involved. I'd say "surely you cant be this stupid or disengenuous" but that would be self deceptive as you clearly are.

 

[CornusKousa]

I am not confusing liberalism and anarchism. if you read what you said, idiot, you will see that you claimed that central regulation to enforce expanded voting rights was illiberal.

No I said you were conflating democracy with liberalism.

Expanding voting rights is pro democracy, it has NOTHING to do with liberalism.

you were the one conflating anarchy and liberalism.

No....I wasn't. Anywhere.

My position was that a government that increases liberty is liberal

YES!! You're 100% correct about that.

Now what does voting have to do with increasing liberty??

It doesn't...it's increasing democracy, which is not the same as liberalism.

I'd say "surely you cant be this stupid or disengenuous" but that would be self deceptive as you clearly are.

I'm not the one engaging in obvious ascription and then insisting on conflating democracy with liberalism because you can't point out a SINGLE liberal position "progressives" hold.

Trying to do so is however deceptive and disingenuous.....making the obvious projection obvious.

I'm sorry, but "progressives" fucking detest individual liberty of any sort...they absolutely fucking hate it and worship at the alter of collectivism and centralized authority, because they're authoritarians, not liberals.

 

[siobhancan99]

increasing voting is increasing the RIGHT to participate in the governmental process

QED increased voting is more liberal than decreased voting. you know this, you're just too much of a blowhard to admit it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

increasing voting is increasing the RIGHT to participate in the governmental process

QED increased voting is more liberal than decreased voting. you know this, you're just too much of a blowhard to admit it.

*chuckles*

No he really is too intellectually challenged to understand....he has taken a position, which was incorrect from the get go, and continues to defend it.

 

[CornusKousa]

increasing voting is increasing the RIGHT to participate in the governmental process

QED increased voting is more liberal than decreased voting. you know this, you're just too much of a blowhard to admit it.

No, it's more democratic.

Venezuela is VERY democratic....highly authoritarian.

Democracy is a system, liberalism is an ideology.

You can have a highly liberal society with ZERO democracy and democracies that as authoritarian as it gets.

Liberalism and democracy are not inherently tied to each other.

 

[CornusKousa]

*chuckles*

No he really is too intellectually challenged to understand....he has taken a position, which was incorrect from the get go, and continues to defend it.

Oh look...not one refutation nor an example of "progressives" being liberal.

Poor Fuzzy...always good for the shit talk, never has much else though.

 

[siobhancan99]

No, it's more democratic.

Venezuela is VERY democratic....highly authoritarian.

Democracy is a system, liberalism is an ideology.

You can have a highly liberal society with ZERO democracy and democracies that as authoritarian as it gets.

Liberalism and democracy are not inherently tied to each other.

prove your dedication to liberal principles then, and stop voting.

 

[CornusKousa]

prove your dedication to liberal principles then, and stop voting.

How does not voting prove dedication to liberal principles??

LOL...

You're STILL trying to connect ideology with systems of governing.

The ideology is found in the policy that the system puts into place.

What kind of system you have (democracy, autocracy, oligarchy or otherwise) doesn't have anything to do with your policy stances being liberal or not.

Expanding voting right is pro democracy....it's very democratic as opposed to autocratic or republican.

It's got nothing to do with being liberal vs authoritarian....as demonstrated by well documented examples of every system (democracies, autocracies, republics etc.) being both very liberal and very authoritarian throughout history and into modern times.

 

[siobhancan99]

denying some the right to participate and giving that right to others is illiberal, regardless of democracy or autocracy or limited monarchy etc.

defending your own right to participate while arguing that others should face hurdles to participate is both illiberal and the height of douchebaggery.

 

[CornusKousa]

denying some the right to participate and giving that right to others is illiberal, regardless of democracy or autocracy or limited monarchy etc.

No, it's undemocratic.

You're STILL trying to conflate political ideology with system of governance.

defending your own right to participate while arguing that others should face hurdles to participate is both illiberal and the height of douchebaggery.

It's unfair.

It's unequitable.

It's undemocratic.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with liberalism though.

Governing systems are not related to the policies they implement ...this is a demonstrable fact.

 

[siobhancan99]

No, it's undemocratic.

You're STILL trying to conflate political ideology with system of governance.



It's unfair.

It's unequitable.

It's undemocratic.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with liberalism though.

Governing systems are not related to the policies they implement ...this is a demonstrable fact.

you are wrong to pretend like these things have nothing to do with each other. Classical liberalism involves the expansion of civil liberties. one important civil liberty is the right to participate in government. pretending that somehow restricting that ability doesn't impinge civil liberties thus is illiberal and is disengenuous and intellectually bankrupt.