Not that I've seen, no, her position seems be trying to remove the concept of biological sex poses a threat to cis women, which isn't the same as advocating for trans rights. Board Girls, wasn't the best episode ever, but managed to skewer both the silly fear that steroidal bearded blokes are going to suddenly claim they're women to win at sports, and also the silly fear that if someone actually did do that, it'd paralyse those of us who support those transitioning
I suppose that depends on the topic and the speaker. For example, if a pediatrician saw some issue in more than one patient, then put together some tests to collect data, came up with a theory, tested that theory, had that theory peer reviewed, then spoke about it, then yes, that person should be allowed to speak. If a politician has a platform that opposed transgender rights, and that politician is on a ballot, and that speaking event is one specifically designed for all candidates to express their views, then yes, that person should be allowed to speak. HOWEVER, If a pediatrician opposes any kind of treatments for transgender children - not data, no testing, just an opinion, then the venue has the right to cancel that speaking engagement If an individual has an opinion that opposes transgender rights, is not running for office, isn't a doctor, has no other power or influence and makes a you tube video, then who cares. If an individual is a celebrity and is known for a certain role and is under contract for that role, and speaks out against transgender rights, then the contract owner has the right to fire that person. If that idea, that issue, is against the injuring a group of people (like slavery or genocide), then yes, not only should it be talked about, but openly opposed. However, if that idea, that issue is to propose injuring a group of people (like limiting rights of transpersons), then no, a venue has a right to say "we don't like your message and we do not want you to speak here." No one cares about anyone else's views. However, speaking is an action and if you speak, depending on where you spoke it, you should expect someone with a differing opinion to say something.
If the German beer halls de-platformed Hitler, the world would have been a lot better off. Just saying.
Bad analogy. Hitler forced his way into the beer hall. It's not like he was just going around college campuses lecturing. Also there's a big difference between pushing Nazi propaganda that includes demonizing and damning an entire race of people and Ben Shapiro discussing economic policy or questioning extreme left ideology.
... You just bought his book, didn't you? I mean, the bitching about labelling. I went looking for some of his quotes - they ARE terrible, but there's no actual Hitler level stuff. But there's a shitload that sounds just like your recent whining.
I read non-fiction history, mostly academic research level stuff and the occasional comic book or sci-fi related material. I don't read books written by celebrities. The only slight exception is books by Thomas Woods. So no, I didn't just buy his book.
So, you bought his book? Because that sentence literally says you did, but you didn't JUST do that. So what else? Watch his Breitbart bits? Cheer when he called a kid mentally ill for having an opinion on climate change? Agree with his "bad Jews" comments? Fap when he said he'd level a Palestinian city with 40,000 citizens using F-16s if it were up to him? What IS your well-formed opinion on the correct level of moisture in an aroused cooter?
I didn't buy his book. Period. I've seen him on Joe Rogan and I've listened to his podcast on occasion.As for the rest, first I've ever heard of any of that and no I don't agree with him on any of it.
Therein possibly lies the difference insofar as we are using the word McCarthyism differently. Latterly it has gained the much broader meaning you are using, but I'm erring towards it's roots in the Truman/McCarthy era and the red scare. To my mind diluting the definition detracts from the very specific lessons to be learnt from that period about the dangers of overreach from lawmakers which is quite different to the more decentralised dynamics we observe today. YMMV.
There I go again on my own! Going down the only road I've ever known! Like a drifter I was born to walk alone!
No. She went from funny-edgy to whiny-bitter and I lost interest. Plus, she actually (if satirically) encouraged the idea of beheading a sitting President. Regardless of what you thought of Trump that is a bridge too far. And before you come back with "ORANGE MAN BAD!" just imagine if that severed head had been any other President.
I don't have to imagine, there were countless protests with lynched effigies of Obama. I don't recall anyone getting talked to by the Secret Service over that.
The Secret Service investigates all "credible" threats against the President. Just because it didn't make the news doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Every president receives death threats. Including Obama. Trying to blame one person for death threats against trump is childish and as bad as FF in terms of (ill)logical conclusions. Has Lanz always been this stupid?
So, deplatforming is nothing Conservatives need to worry about, since it doesn't affect their ability to get their message out. Great! Glad we're on the same page.
Basically, it's rebranding - because the right constantly needs some new "threat to our freedoms!!!1!!111!!!" to motivate the marks.
Indeed. After the accumulation of considerable data i have come to the firm conclusion that ANYONE who gets paid to express an opinion, and with few exceptions all those who do not but do it for free, who use the term "woke" as a derogatory label implying that to be woke is something to be ridiculed and mocked... Instantly loses my respect for whatever opinion they were otherwise about to express. I'm usually not an asshole about it though.
the problem with describing "cancel culture" as a plague upon society that must be resisted is that it is applied WAY more broadly than what you are (not entirely incorrectly) describing and, oddly, pretty much backwards from the original intention of the term. The sort of "dogpile" you mention CAN be an actual legit problem, though often as not it can be instigated by the very people who claim "cancel culture" is a crisis - dudes who have a massive following and need only name a target to have that target harassed into a mental breakdown. For example, the reporter that Tucker Carlson named on the air and repeated her name like 14 times in one segment so that his bros would be very clear about whom they should be dogpiling...and they did. mercilessly. But Tucker will tell you that Cancel Culture is an apocalyptic threat to humanity. THAT sort of even is not at all the same as, say, Disney's stupid decision to dump James Gunn over some old bad-taste-comedy tweets. But the right refers to both of these and other even more minor things as cancel culture, often to ridiculous extremes. Because for them, the term has no ACTUAL objective meaning, it's just a rebranding of "political correctness" And that original meaning? Both "woke" and "canceled" originated within black media culture and to be canceled was basically "you got your ass kicked (metaphorically) for your bullshit and you had that coming" - canceling was an appropriate reaction to the offense. White right wingers turned it into a badge of honor to have been victimized by being "canceled" by the "woke libs"
