Her ex husband
Her ex husbandYou could believe what the individuals recount, or you can keep making up stuff from wherever you get your fake news.
By the way, my link was to a story just after Trump won the Presidency in 2016, and when most people thought Biden would never again run.
@PZ99, the sad reality is that these sock puppets are pasting fake news in a thread about the ills of fake news. No matter how many times they are shown there content is rubbish, they return with more.
If we ignore their tripe then it gains a semblance of legitimacy - the mud thrown that sticks!
That seems to be quite a forceful view. It's not a case of simply ignoring that which they disagree with but rather, actively silencing and using force if necessary to do so. Think in terms of academics being effectively shut down at universities simply for making factually correct albeit uncomfortable statements. Think in terms of "cancel culture" and sweeping under the rug anything that they dislike. Think in terms of the reality that science denial has become fashionable. Etc. If what's being said is uncomfortable then shut it down seems to be the response.
I don't agree with your statement. While some may have a hard and fast world view, nothing compels them to "silence" others who do not share it.As a general rule I've said I'll avoid political comment on this forum but, given you own it, I'll add something:
A big issue as I perceive is that many simply aren't willing to consider anything they don't agree with. If it challenges their world view then, rather than listen and carefully consider what's being said, the response is to instead silence it.
We'll have to disagree there although that's really my point.Now back to why I disagree with @Smurf1976: the @dutchie, @moXJO or @satanopercas of the world are not being silenced at ASF unless they choose to play outside clearly laid out rules.
Like climate nazi?And, worst of all, they use a suite of newly minted pejorative catchphrases that suggest that those who do not believe what they preach are the ones who have got it wrong. In political threads they use labels, like left or right, in climate topics they refer to alarmists, and more generally in forums they believe they are being put down via cancel culture. The data below from a Google search shows just how recent references to cancel culture are:
I actually responded to your points about people with a particular world view being "silenced," and said nothing about respectful disagreements, which many of us here can have.We'll have to disagree there although that's really my point.
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Simply having a different view isn't a bad thing indeed the opposite is true, dissent sure beats blind acceptance without question.
Using the specific example of climate change that you mention though, as someone who's had plenty of discussions on the subject, my observation is that rather a lot have no real interest in getting to the truth. Rather, they have a pre-determined position and will clutch at whatever straws support that argument.
Both sides there are prone toward nonsense. One one side there's denial of well understood science and observation, on the other there's nonsense claims about dams not filling or that using 100% renewable energy is a cinch and so on. Neither stands objective scrutiny.
To my other point though, well as an atheist I'm well aware that should I attend a church service, they'll be on about God and so on. So far as I'm concerned that's my problem not theirs since as an adult I ought to know that churches are well known for doing so and I have the option to stay away if I don't wish to hear it. Likewise if you're a conservative religious sort of person well then don't go to a strip club and complain, as an adult you ought to know what you're in for if you hand over some money and walk through that door. If you don't like Mickey Mouse then you really ought to stay well away from Disneyland. And so on but there's zero reason why consenting adults shouldn't engage in such things if they wish to do so.
As for "cancel culture" - as I see it, it's really just the modern term for those exhibiting controlling behaviour. There's always someone around with a desire to dictate what others do. If it's not churches preaching conservatism, politicians trying to regulate something that doesn't really need regulating or media moguls telling everyone what they think is wrong or right then someone else fills the gap and does it. Only real trouble is they tend to blow up serious issues in doing so which isn't helpful.
We can disagree though - that's my point really.
@Joe Blow would be able to confirm any specific reference to "climate Nazi" as I am not aware of the phrase ever being used, apart from the term "Nazi" being synonymously (and pejoratively) used for zealot.Like climate nazi?
From whom did that originate from on this forum?
I remember.
The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it. And it's constant dribble that then descends into outright lies or ignoring history.
Probably shouldn't point fingers.
Obvious problems need to be discussed....
No argument there, that's exactly what I'm doing, but only because so far as I'm able to tell it's the vast majority of discussion on the subject.With respect to your points on climate, you seem to be playing both uninformed sides rather than those who promote the science.
With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively. In it's intended sense it was to refer to inappropriate behaviours not getting air time.
We're on the same page with that one.Changing tack a little, as we post here a separate inquiry into the power of certain media in Australia is being conducted. Viewers of Media Watch will know about the crap that gets bandied about as "news" via syndication. Then there is the spray against labor Premiers on lockdowns that doesn't spill onto liberal Premiers. For a near impartial perspective look at the New Zealand experience and contrast that with what goes down in Australia. While this inquiry relates to mainstream media, the point I am getting to is about "influence".
The nuance is that influence affects belief, and where the basis of influence is unsound, then belief may not be reliable.
Cancel culture was not Trump specific. The above ignores groups set up to cancel anything they don't like through threats, intimidation, etc.I actually responded to your points about people with a particular world view being "silenced," and said nothing about respectful disagreements, which many of us here can have.
With respect to your points on climate, you seem to be playing both uninformed sides rather than those who promote the science.
With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively. In it's intended sense it was to refer to inappropriate behaviours not getting air time. In that very sense Trump's tweets were flagged, and then his account removed. Should our culture - which nowdays includes a preponderance of social media use - be used foster fake news, anti-science and violence?
Trump consistently dismissed any dissenting views on his self-assessed remarkable achievements as "fake news," and recently Trump's legal team derided his impeachment trial as "constitutional cancel culture". Neither of those ideas warrant reasonable belief.
The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it
I merely gave a very recent example, and it reflected its inappropriate nature. That is, there could never have have been any reasonable attempt to cancel debate on what the Constitution allowed as it was a decision of the Republicans to not proceed with Impeachment until after Biden's inauguration. It was just another smear from the Trump machine.Cancel culture was not Trump specific. The above ignores groups set up to cancel anything they don't like through threats, intimidation, etc.
No offence but I wouldn't stick you with the 'overseer of truth' title to govern over the forums.
With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively.
You have not understood my point. Your example agrees with my stance.No it isn't, it definitely exists.
Like this:-
Richard Dawkins event cancelled over his 'abusive speech against Islam'
Berkeley’s KPFA Radio cancels appearance by evolutionary biologist after learning of his ‘hurtful speech’ against the religion – a charge the author contestswww.theguardian.com
"Abusive speech" is a matter of opinion and could be applied to anything that a listener doesn't agree with.
Cancel culture exists and is PC gone mad.
It's abhorrent.
Yes, I have to agree with you moXJO, but I am not too sure they are oblivious.The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it. And it's constant dribble that then descends into outright lies or ignoring history.
Probably shouldn't point fingers.
That is a blatant lie @dutchie. What you can say at ASF is arbitrated by @Joe Blow.The left are often hard-headed in their opinions and judgmental about others’ behaviours, hoping to control what other people think and say to cut off debate. They have tried to control what I say on numerous occasions.
The left cannot tolerate different views.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?