Now now. He also is in other crappy movies and shows that aren’t Christian productions. And he makes crappy appearances where he says shitty moronic things and throws away what little good wiling being in a network show a generation ago that was so crappy it was endearing and making a couple funny cameos as a recognizable has-been can buy you.
So here’s the thing- “cancel culture” isn’t a liberal issue or a conservative issue. You’ll find plenty of known left or liberal leaning people, even media personalities, bemoaning cancel culture. When we look across the politic isles and see these people standing together against cancel culture, what do liberal comedians and far right mouthpieces tend to share along with some random red ticket coal miners or a bunch of Silicon Valley tech bros who vote blue? It isn’t politics or income or even values. It’s much more fundamental. If you watch who tends to be most outspoken against cancel culture, it tends to be people who are huge assholes. Yes, this isn’t a political issue, it isn’t about progressive and conservative values or any of that. The Bible thumping red state church goer that lives their book is going to agree on principle with the atheist vegan in Seattle that making fun of someone for being different is not ok and not something they want to support…
Unless they’re both assholes who agree that whatever their personal beliefs say about causing harm and accepting things that it’s ok, as long as they enjoy watching it happen.
Racists are assholes. Even if they’re nice in every other way- you can’t discriminate against an entire race of people on that basis and not be an asshole. If a person thinks it’s ok to spread hate or mock or exploit race or a person based on race, that person is an asshole. So no two people who aren’t assholes are going to see someone doing or saying something that fits that bill and go along with it. We can apply this test and it is almost universal. Where you see “cancel culture” brought up, it is almost always an asshole who is upset that there may be consequences for being an asshole, or an asshole trying to rally people to serve their interests by rattling the cancel culture cage.
It would be a rare exception to the rule to find cancel culture being invoked as a concept by someone who isn’t an asshole
*except in an ironic sense of course. Such as making fun of the concept. Which- is still technically being an asshole. So we are almost all assholes- at least sometimes. It’s more a question of how big and how often we are assholes, and wether we aspire to be assholes or aspire to be better but know that sometimes we won’t meet those goals.
I like you dash. Your statement doesn’t make sense. I’m an asshole and lots of people like me. I like lots of people and most people are assholes or can be assholes. What does being an asshole have to do with being liked? Most of histories most loved figures were considered assholes. But there is being an asshole, and being an Asshole. You may not like cancel culture but in my experience you also aren’t terribly outspoken about it. Which in the first post on the subject, I do mention that the proportion one is an asshole tends to often be linked to this facet. Ok. So look… everyone is a bigot right? Everyone has some unreasonable prejudice of some sort. But not everyone feels or is out saying that “XYZ group is a threat to the country!” Right? And so we are all bigots or can be bigots, but you can generally tell how unapologetic or prolific they are in their bigotry by how much or wether they do and say certain things right? Like there’s a big difference between thinking…
… “martians are usually loud, I hope the new Martian neighbor isn’t loud…” and casting your vote or voice into a ballot or movement to ban martians from the neighborhood. The first one is imperfect, flawed, but no one is actually hurt and when you get to know your neighbor as a person, your thinking may change. The second one is a person who has risen to the point where they don’t care if their own flaws harm others, or actively seek to harm others through their flaws. And of course, your mom or grade school best friend might want to ban martians and you don’t. And you disagree on that topic, but you might still otherwise think they’re a good and decent person whom you appreciate their company or like just fine. If we didn’t like anyone who wasn’t perfect, we’d all be much more lonely. So maybe you’re an asshole. I don’t know if your comment was written in a true earnest concern or to “call out” what I said without directly addressing the logic- the former being innocent and the…
.. latter being something that one could call “assholish.” Of course- I just used the word asshole 900 times and drew a direct parallel between people who whine about cancel culture and being assholes- which one could also take as a sign I am an asshole (I totally am an asshole and associate frequently and closely with assholes, for the record.) but specific to this conversation is a type of assholery in which the asshole in question expresses their assholeness through a lack of care for other peoples feelings. More precise language than the all encompassing term “asshole” might be to say “a self centered world view.” Reasons for such views can be many, from lack of empathy or self importance to general lack of awareness or even psychological or neurological conditions. So it isn’t inherently condemning to say a person has a self centered world view- point of fact, most people are bias to degrees in viewing the world as such. It’s a bit inherent to the nature of our existence and..
.. cognition. We can only experience the world from perspective of self, so that is our anchor point to perceive the world and the filter we see others through.
But to what was already said in the original post, while we all have flaws and almost all of us have these specific characteristics to some degree, there are some defining questions, a few of which might be:
- are we aware we have these traits and acknowledge them?
- how much do we allow these traits to dictate our life choices vs. using higher functioning to examine our behavior and make choices based on ethics instead of instincts?
- do we aspire to embody these traits or to rise above them as much as practical while maintaining a sense of self?
- how intrinsically is our sense of self tied to these traits? How much of who we believe we are so we define by aspects of our nature which impact others negatively?
- what if any responsibility do we feel to others for our own behaviors and actions?
In the end those questions can sort of can be oversimplified down to “do we consider others to be equally valid and have equal rights to a peaceful and mutual coexistence?”
If we say we do, and we engage in certain behaviors others find unpleasant, we either don’t actually think people have the right to equal and peaceful existence, or we don’t actually respect ourselves so we cannot respect others.
Now- I’m perfect fairness, like any jingoism, it’s a catchy buzz word that can take on various meanings and many of those joining the discussion don’t actually understand what is being discussed or grasp the full issue. So this doesn’t necessarily apply to them. Although, one can argue that speaking on issues in ignorance is the preview of an asshole, but we all are ignorant of all things in some way, so we return to everyone is or can be an asshole to varying degrees. How ignorant we are on a topic and how surely we argue it factor in for sure.
So I mean- someone can say “I hate cancel culture” and what they MEAN is that they dislike that media has become so politicized. They may lack the awareness or articulation to state this, and “cancel culture” tends to be shorter and catchier, it’s hipper in the vernacular and more trendy. My use of the word “asshole” here is actually in fact an illustration of this concept. “Asshole” is catchier and more all encompassing and short hand for a host of behaviors generally considered in a negative manner. The slang term “feels” is another example- instead of the vulnerability or self awareness or vocabulary and potentially drawn out language to describe an exact emotional state, “feels” is a short hand which people will take at face value or apply their own value to it based on their experiences. It is however imprecise and leaves the interpretation to the audience and how “like minded” or similar the speaker is to them.
So from my use of the word “asshole” here we can automatically see the problem inherent to “cancel culture.” When we see that word… what are we taking about? It’s applied to boycotting a comedian for making a joke about vaginas the same as it is to a politician being ousted for committing crimes or a movie being boycotted because of personal life drama of the cast or for a YouTube personality getting their channel pulled for repeatedly saying the Holocaust didn’t happen and then advocating that people go make one happen. All those things can (and similar have) been called “cancel culture.”
That’s a really big freaking spread.
So it’s largely a stupid word that makes no sense and what people will understand it to mean is based on their personal beliefs- which is largely the antithesis of the purpose of words existing. The premise of “cancel culture” primarily relies on the concept of freedom of expression- but what are the people who are “cancelling” others doing? Exercising freedom of expression. Democracy. Their right to speak out against things they don’t like, their right to boycott products and producers who they don’t want to associate with, their right to lobby for laws and changes, etc. Now, there is an inherent paradox in “inclusive society” and many will have already guessed it. Inclusive society is exclusive to those who seek to exclude others.
There is however a fundamental difference between people being equal and IDEAS being equal. This all gets messy and slippery. We could put forward an argument that to use free speech to get e comedian fired for making hurtful remarks against gay people is no different than if communists were in power and “used free speech to get rid of someone making fun of communism…” well… perhaps on some level? But let’s examine this- one of these things is a type of person and the other is an idea. No human is born communist but lots of humans are born gay. If you can refrain from advertising your politics to random strangers there is essentially no way anyone would ever realize you are with the Green Party, but it’s not so simple to hide from a room of strangers your general race for all people. There are aspects which are divorced from the person and those which are not. Saying you think my ideas are “stupid” is quite different than reading my ideas and saying I am “stupid.” Certainly one can say
Either in a nicer way, but the concept being that ideas can and do change and don’t necessarily reflect on our value as humans where as a direct statement about a person or linked aspect is a direct comment on them as a person and not some non inherent factor. So much like “BLM,” or “Defund the Police” or “snow flake” or “asshole” the term “cancel culture” is extremely vague. Two people can’t have an in depth discussion using those terms unless they both agree on the exact meaning of the terms.
When one says “black lives matter,” it should of course be true- black lives do matter. However, when we discuss “black lives matter” are we taking about the fact that they matter? Are we talking about a social advocacy sentiment? Are we talking about a very specific organization as a proper noun? Regardless of the context it is impossible for most people to free the phrase from its political associations and any contextual baggage they personally associate with the phrase. “snow flake” was..
.. and still is a phrase primarily associated with right or extreme right politics. It’s primary use by liberals was ironically or as a way to co-opt the term and use it against those who primarily weaponized it. A way to undermine its effectiveness in essence by either showing the term applies to people of all politically views or weakening its association with conservative values and associating it closer to liberal values. Basically “taking it away” from the group that primarily popularized it. “McCarthyism” is sort of Americas most widely known 20th century “cancel culture,” instead of hurtful or hateful language or insensitive acts, we sought to find and “cancel” those associated with communism or “anti American” ideas and behaviors. And this was weaponized further to serve as justification for inflicting harm on those who were seen as “opponents” to others who could somehow leverage the sentiment against their target.
Various “gay panics” and other such things have served as “cancel culture” where people were sought out and penalized for their views or lifestyles, censored and at least in attempt, “hidden away” from mass society. So how is this different now that those with certain ideals are being targeted or those with “offensive views” etc? Well…. Sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes it is. There are those who would use even false allegations of socially unacceptable behavior to undermine or harm their perceived enemies. There are people who want to silence others simply because they disagree or have some vague personal opposition or discomfort from hearing certain facts etc. at the same time though- there are many fundamental differences here.
As previously stated, there is a big difference between saying you aren’t going to tolerate people picking on others by virtue of self vs. picking on some idea or acquired aspect not directly linked to self. McCarthyism was wrong and that was about ideas not people right? True. But McCarthyism wasn’t a movement started by the will of the people. It was carried out by a government in the interests of that government. A government which used the influence of a powerful and self interested minority to coordinate a campaign of propaganda and media control to influence public sentiment towards an idea they manufactured. That concept is very critical to understand. The government manufactured the “red scare.” They carefully curated information to build the conditions under which people would tend to reach the conclusion they wanted them to.
“That’s just how influencing people works. How is ‘woke’ culture different?” Some of that is how influencing ideas works. I can’t argue that. The nuances are abundant. There is a difference between manufacturing an does to fit a need- deciding you need a war or more spending and less oversight so creating a threat in peoples minds, vs. there being an actual nation which has declared war and then trying to influence people to see the danger and approve what needs done. To be fair there was some danger of the “red menace” and still is. Spies are everywhere. So some of it was just fear getting away from those in power, but that fear was released and amplified because certain people saw it as their chance to take advantage. And there is some of that in “woke politics.” There are certain people or organizations that can benefit from certain changes. If people stop watching Netflix because of “cancel culture” that might benefit Hulu- so maybe Hulu would stoke flames against netflix or..
.. use passive strategies to emphasize how “inclusive” they are comparatively etc. and monetize the situation. Maybe certain political groups have more support in traditionally underrepresented communities or know their opponents have no support, so those groups would have a vested interest in seeing those communities rise and conceivably elevate their group as well. Sure there will be some of this always. But fundamentally the sentiment behind “cancel culture” is people thinking about other people or listening to and trying to respect other people.
When it’s all said and done, that’s what’s at stake- does a person in question want to try and respect other people or not? I can type and type and there are a million angles and nuances and pocket cases here.
We can try and define this to the finest point on the pencil but let’s make this simple. No decent person is going to say Slavery in general but specifically American slave institutions are/were a good thing right? They were wrong on a fundamental level and we don’t need to pin point every single little aspect and nuance that made it a disgusting stain on the human soul. If we wanted to sum it up we could say to a child that slavery is bad because it is mean to the people Being enslaved. Most kids will understand that, so I believe in my heart that the grown folk amongst us should be able to grasp the concept that being mean to other people is just wrong because it is wrong. Blah blah yes. There are 90000000+ ways we can say “isn’t this mean if we examine it” or that we are all mean every day and blah blah. Yes. True. Adults know sometimes the world is mean and you will be too. But… we have some say in when and where and how we are mean. Not a whole lot you can do about…
.. how mean it is that kids are making your phone in a sweat shop except turn movie hero and try to end it with your own hands, or go live in a cave. We do make choices everyday about how hurtful we will be or to what ends. You can mitigate it. Try to choose a phone that at least tries to avoid sweat shop labor or vote and lobby for stricter supply chain laws or whatever. Eating your neighbor because the entire world collapsed and your family will starve is messed up, wrong even, but what are the choices? Eating your neighbor because you forgot to go to the store and grub hub always delivers food cold is maybe pretty universally considered just wrong. We can grasp these things easily in extreme examples, but when we dial the stakes back on the harm it’s suddenly way more palatable to accept going out of our way to hurt someone feelings. That seems a bit odd. Most people agree punching someone for annoying you is criminal, wrong.
Mocking them to the point they go home and cry over it though? Hell, a whole lot of people would celebrate that. Laugh and hoot. The harm is less Immediate and apparently severe so it is ok? If the core concept is that doing harm to others isn’t aspirational and doing it for no reason other than enjoyment or cruelty is wrong, the size of the harm only matters in determining punishment, not wether it is right or wrong. A small harm is a harm the same as a big harm. The consequences may differ, but it comes down to wether we are looking at things in terms of consequence or terms of ethics. In terms of consequence “attempted murder” or “attempted robbery” where no one was harmed wouldn't be wrong really- what’s the harm there? Someone maybe got scared? So it should be illegal to scare someone now? “Cancel culture” strikes again by outlawing “attempted” murder.
In the practical sense we know that there are generally increased risks to future attempts or successes at violent crime in such cases- although in “spur of the moment” crimes the data actually can be argued to say there is no increased future risk statistically once that specific event is done and the person has time to think. Though that is another topic. So back to the point, the concept is simple and clear. The crime there is that you intended to harm another human being and the fact there weren’t dire consequences of harm stemming from your actions is chance. But- what about where you didn’t intend to cause harm? Why if you were just having fun, making a joke? Well… if there was reasonable cause to believe that your actions would or likely could result in harm- that’s probably considered wrong. This concept seems to need a lot of explaining but again- children seem to grasp it easily.
I think that as adults we need to examine our behaviors and ask ourselves if what we are discussing is something we maybe already learned in kindergarten, and if so… perhaps we should step back on our “adult participation” until we can master those fundamentals better.
Unless someone grew up on a compound that isn’t on any postal service maps- they probably didn’t grow up being taught “if you want to call Suzy a little slut or call Jimmy the F word- you can. I can’t stop you. It’s your right as a person to freely express yourself even if it makes others uncomfortable or they ask you to stop.” Not many parents (who give a damn) are going to watch an older sibling torment their younger sibling with “I’m not touching you I’m not touching you…” and be like: “wish I could help kid. But he’s got me. They’re just words. My hands are tied.”
You’re required to go to public school (if your parents can’t provide alternative education) and you didn’t agree to it most likely. As a kid you legally can’t right? You’re there, not by choice. So then, the teacher is teaching class and they ask a question. They call on you and your answer is telling jokes about the topic. The teacher looks up and shrugs. They think to themselves: “well crap. I want them to stop, but this is a public place and they have every right I do. I can’t stop them. I’d ask them to stop, but that is cancel culture. I may not agree with them that making jokes about this historical massacre is not appropriate, but I did call on them, and I let Jimmy talk for 2 minutes so I need to give them their 2 minutes…” naw. Common sense hopefully tells us that isn’t and shouldn’t be how that goes.
Common sense hopefully tells us that because schools teach about atrocities of slavery or the Nazis, they shouldn’t be required or allowed to have a class-
Even an elective or a club- where students hear about how “great” those things are or some “alternate take” that isn’t boiled down to: “this was awful and wrong.” There is no alternate take that any human that belongs in our society could possibly have that doesn’t end up as those things are awful and wrong. So we seem to grasp this stuff when it comes to kids but all of a sudden we can legally fuck and we forget things as basic as: “saying mean things isn’t cool.” And this is where we resolve the paradox of how an inclusive society excludes those to seek to exclude others. It isn’t a paradox. An inclusive society is inclusive to anyone who chooses to live with others, and respects that those who don’t choose to live with others can and should leave and go be away from others. No one is forced out, no one is cancelled because…
.. of who they ARE, you are asked “who do you want to BE.” A society that takes the rights of a person because of the color of their skin or the type of legally and informed consenting person they love is a society telling certain people they cannot live there as equals because they can’t change who they are on a fundamental level and shouldn’t have to.
A society that tells people they can’t live there if they are going to keep trying to round up all the X color people and ship them off or kill them, a society that tells people they can’t live there if they insist on making others unhappy because they enjoy the pain- that’s a society giving a person a choice to be a better person or decide they want to be as they are.
The seeming paradox is resolved.
I believe that the world and people are often cruel, ultimately those with strength can take what they want, do what they want. That you cannot rely on anyone to help you.
But I believe that when we are immature or “lost” in our own pain or lack of purpose we see these facts as reasons to justify our cruelty to others, reasons to justify selfishness, reasons to justify picking on those who are weaker the same as those able to do so or life may do to us.
When we become mature or find that “thing” we really needed but didn’t have, we tend to realize instead to focus on the feelings. What did it feel like when you were helpless and needed it? What did it feel like when the world was hard on you?
Hard times create strong men and strong men create good times blah blah. Is the cliche. I don’t think that’s entirely true. Weak men don’t create weak times inherently. Maybe if they are morally weak or weak in purpose, but usually bad times come by fluke of nature or when weak men encounter stronger men who want to make times bad. I mean it’s self evident. Strong and weak are relative right? So even a strong man will have bad times if a stronger man wants to make it so and can’t be stopped because one is weaker right? So even a strong man may need a stronger man or a thousand to stop other men of equal or greater total strength from making times bad for them. Those are fundamentals to violent conflict. In the end, it’s strong men that tend to protect weak man from strong men or forces. So strong men here tend to be both the cause and solution to violent conflict and such.
Abe Lincoln, the great emancipator, would be “cancelled” in 15 minutes if you brought him to 2022. He’d be racist, sexist, problematic. Some of the most die hard progressives in history would be shunned by progressives in the modern age as ultra conservative, as hate mongers. That’s the goal. The dream. Let’s help build a world that’s too good for us. A place where we don’t belong. A place where the most progressive left wing sensitive snowflake whiner baby on earth would be viewed like a Klan Member for how backwards and ignorant they are. The more we remove suffering and want and need and technology insulates people from brutal and hard reality; the more we have the luxuries of time and prosperity to allow us freedom from scarcity, the more people are likely to become “soft.not getting in fights, not being shot at, not being robbed, not going hungry,
Not having no clothes or no money or blah blah. These are increasingly uncommon experiences to most kids in the developed world, things like what it means to “not have food” or “have no money” are usually more like hyperbole. A kid dies and most people lose their shit. Getting shot at is a traumatic experience everyone sympathizes with, not part of the accepted way things are for most people. Soft. So many soft people. My partner has expressed feeling some sort of guilt at sharing their tales of “suburban poverty” because they know what I lived in life and feel like they shouldn’t complain. Bad is bad is what I tell them. Suffering is suffering. So I think they’re soft? Often yes. Sensitive, not comfortable in truly “bad” situations.
And what? That’s a BAD thing? That we could provide, and hopefully increase, a quality of life where people don’t have to be comfortable and feel normal navigating unpleasant or dangerous situations? My fathers life makes mine look like a kids movie. That man has seen more decapitations than you’d think anyone born after 1700 would have seen. My great grandfather and his sibling had a story they used to laugh about in which as kids he pranked his brother by CUTTING OFF HIS FINGERS. They’d tell this story the same you or I might causally laugh and “kids will be kids” about filling some shoes with jello or something. An ex girlfriends grandma didn’t like dogs because they were farmers and things got bad and they had to eat the dogs. Most of us are too soft to make it in the world those people grew up in. I for one am glad. I have been fed a family pet ad a child, not even the worst thing I’ve had to eat in life, but I don’t wish it in others to have to eat their best furry friend…
.. just so that they can know what that like or not “grow up soft.” I think that when we start producing “soft” people who are able to thrive in society, that’s a sign of success. It means we have the stability and abundance and such to allow that, because soft people don’t make it when the world is hard. The fact there are so many soft people means that each generation has been making the world a little easier to stay alive in.
So just like Honest Abe would be seen as a huge problem in 2022, I want a future where in a venture or so, that’s the sort of progress we have. That even the most fluffy among us would seem barbaric and the average among us would look like a freaking raging Neanderthal ideologically. That’s the world the powers behind spreading the concept of “cancel culture” are afraid of because people like them don’t exist in that world. Because the history of that world doesn’t view people like them kindly.
Because while most…all, people are or can be assholes, some people don’t ever want to change. Some people want us to celebrate that. I don’t think everyone who has an opinion on cancel culture is a bad person or someone I don’t like. I think a lot of people are just viewing it from a very topical perspective. They like this celebrity or this joke or this show or they don’t like change or they see in themselves the same flaws that others are losing social status or opportunity for and there is a fear that world is going to be one they can’t live in. They totally can though. We will always have assholes and probably will always all be assholes. History is the study of how the acceptable dynamics of being an asshole change with time. So me and my fellow assholes just have to work hard to keep up as modern assholes and not let our assholery become outdated. That’s all.
actually please come for Kevin's shitty Christian movies next.
They're terrible.
Sincerely, everyone.
Racists are assholes. Even if they’re nice in every other way- you can’t discriminate against an entire race of people on that basis and not be an asshole. If a person thinks it’s ok to spread hate or mock or exploit race or a person based on race, that person is an asshole. So no two people who aren’t assholes are going to see someone doing or saying something that fits that bill and go along with it. We can apply this test and it is almost universal. Where you see “cancel culture” brought up, it is almost always an asshole who is upset that there may be consequences for being an asshole, or an asshole trying to rally people to serve their interests by rattling the cancel culture cage.
It would be a rare exception to the rule to find cancel culture being invoked as a concept by someone who isn’t an asshole
But to what was already said in the original post, while we all have flaws and almost all of us have these specific characteristics to some degree, there are some defining questions, a few of which might be:
- are we aware we have these traits and acknowledge them?
- how much do we allow these traits to dictate our life choices vs. using higher functioning to examine our behavior and make choices based on ethics instead of instincts?
- do we aspire to embody these traits or to rise above them as much as practical while maintaining a sense of self?
- how intrinsically is our sense of self tied to these traits? How much of who we believe we are so we define by aspects of our nature which impact others negatively?
- what if any responsibility do we feel to others for our own behaviors and actions?
If we say we do, and we engage in certain behaviors others find unpleasant, we either don’t actually think people have the right to equal and peaceful existence, or we don’t actually respect ourselves so we cannot respect others.
Now- I’m perfect fairness, like any jingoism, it’s a catchy buzz word that can take on various meanings and many of those joining the discussion don’t actually understand what is being discussed or grasp the full issue. So this doesn’t necessarily apply to them. Although, one can argue that speaking on issues in ignorance is the preview of an asshole, but we all are ignorant of all things in some way, so we return to everyone is or can be an asshole to varying degrees. How ignorant we are on a topic and how surely we argue it factor in for sure.
That’s a really big freaking spread.
When one says “black lives matter,” it should of course be true- black lives do matter. However, when we discuss “black lives matter” are we taking about the fact that they matter? Are we talking about a social advocacy sentiment? Are we talking about a very specific organization as a proper noun? Regardless of the context it is impossible for most people to free the phrase from its political associations and any contextual baggage they personally associate with the phrase. “snow flake” was..
When it’s all said and done, that’s what’s at stake- does a person in question want to try and respect other people or not? I can type and type and there are a million angles and nuances and pocket cases here.
Unless someone grew up on a compound that isn’t on any postal service maps- they probably didn’t grow up being taught “if you want to call Suzy a little slut or call Jimmy the F word- you can. I can’t stop you. It’s your right as a person to freely express yourself even if it makes others uncomfortable or they ask you to stop.” Not many parents (who give a damn) are going to watch an older sibling torment their younger sibling with “I’m not touching you I’m not touching you…” and be like: “wish I could help kid. But he’s got me. They’re just words. My hands are tied.”
Even an elective or a club- where students hear about how “great” those things are or some “alternate take” that isn’t boiled down to: “this was awful and wrong.” There is no alternate take that any human that belongs in our society could possibly have that doesn’t end up as those things are awful and wrong. So we seem to grasp this stuff when it comes to kids but all of a sudden we can legally fuck and we forget things as basic as: “saying mean things isn’t cool.” And this is where we resolve the paradox of how an inclusive society excludes those to seek to exclude others. It isn’t a paradox. An inclusive society is inclusive to anyone who chooses to live with others, and respects that those who don’t choose to live with others can and should leave and go be away from others. No one is forced out, no one is cancelled because…
A society that tells people they can’t live there if they are going to keep trying to round up all the X color people and ship them off or kill them, a society that tells people they can’t live there if they insist on making others unhappy because they enjoy the pain- that’s a society giving a person a choice to be a better person or decide they want to be as they are.
The seeming paradox is resolved.
But I believe that when we are immature or “lost” in our own pain or lack of purpose we see these facts as reasons to justify our cruelty to others, reasons to justify selfishness, reasons to justify picking on those who are weaker the same as those able to do so or life may do to us.
When we become mature or find that “thing” we really needed but didn’t have, we tend to realize instead to focus on the feelings. What did it feel like when you were helpless and needed it? What did it feel like when the world was hard on you?
So just like Honest Abe would be seen as a huge problem in 2022, I want a future where in a venture or so, that’s the sort of progress we have. That even the most fluffy among us would seem barbaric and the average among us would look like a freaking raging Neanderthal ideologically. That’s the world the powers behind spreading the concept of “cancel culture” are afraid of because people like them don’t exist in that world. Because the history of that world doesn’t view people like them kindly.