Any more details to report? In what way do they think they’ve heavily influenced the alt right?
I’m curious, but do not want to personally go down that rabbit hole.
Wow! You’ve got a terrific memory! Can you tell me when that was?
To the extent that it’s debatable that apartheid would ever have been dismantled if other countries and sporting bodies hadn’t “cancelled” their involvement with South Africa.
Not much else. The race IQ debated is settled. Black people can’t govern themselves. I didn’t see them get into any final solutions though.
They just said a lot of prominent online alt-righters have posted there.
Oh yeah - by their standards Neff was absolutely not racist and never posted anything racist.
CANCEL CULTUREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
In my true “centrist” manner, my take is in the middle somewhere. 
I’d first argue nobody can have an informed take on the subject without watching the, admittedly long, contrapoints video posted earlier itt. It is well worth your time.
Second, the term cancel culture is really bad. As pointed out several times already very few people are really cancelled, especially rich and famous people. Their real threat is close to zero.
Of course we want to hold people accountable for their actions. That is an unarguable good! If you say terrible things that hurt people you should suffer rebuke. This is a tradition that dates to hunter gatherers.
Here is where I get uncomfortable. The idea of social rebuke is the recipient learns something and, if apologetic, is allowed back “in”. Too often current “cancelling” is premised on a one strike and you are out forever rule. This is the purity stuff I’ve commented on often here. We need to get over the idea that someone who once held a terrible, even harmful, belief should be “cancelled” forever. The idea we can’t agree with someone unless they hold 100% the same beliefs as I do is really bad for democracy.
Ideas should be cancelled (no quotes). People should not.
I also hate the transitive nature of “cancelling”. It’s absurd to argue that if someone speaks to someone with a bad idea they are equally responsible for that idea. This is a poison pill for political discourse.
I agree. As I stated the term is a huge part of the problem. Reading the two letters I’m convinced they are not talking about the same thing at all.
It’s like one guy is saying he is fine and the other guy is arguing against his ticket (fine).
My concern lies with the health of the overall discourse, not with someone getting shamed on Twitter.
I don’t however agree permanent cancelling doesn’t happen, especially in a political context. It’s in this context purity tests abound. There are thousands of posts on this site making the claim that politician X should be hated now and forever, no matter what they do, because they once voted incorrectly or held a bad belief.
Can you share an example of permanent cancelling in a political context?
And even if millions of posters state that they will not support a candidate because of past action X, what is wrong with that? Shouldn’t we be choosing who to support or elect as leaders based upon their track record.
Agreed. The original letter did a poor job of explaining what they were actually arguing against and instead adopted the “buzz phrase” assuming everyone agreed on its meaning.
It’s especially terrible from someone like Chomsky who should understand language. The phrase is brand new to our collective lexicon. Of course it’s meaning is ill-defined. Failing to clarify is guaranteed to lead to confusion and bad faith discussion.
As I noted it depends what you mean by “cancelled”. If the definition is ended their career or public forum forever, there are very few examples, most of which are frankly on the left.
As for not supporting a candidate for past action I would simply say politics is complex. Norms and culture change. We need to allow for evolution in ideas. We need to let people change their mind, if evidence shows it is in good faith.
As I said in my original post, I’m all for “cancelling” ideas, not people.
I agree that it depends upon what definition one is using when they say cancelled.
That’s why I was asking you for an example, so that i can understand what you mean by cancelled when you said this:
“I don’t however agree permanent cancelling doesn’t happen, especially in a political context.”
This is where we re re re re re litigate Al Franken!?!
I don’t have a good example of a cancelled politician because as goofy rightfully pointed out it’s a bad phrase for what has happened.
This also brings up an important point too. I am actually less concerned of politicians being cancelled, as in getting shamed online, protested against, or decided support. That is part of a healthy democracy. I’m more concerned when it happens to average people who say something dumb or even harmful.
I realize my message here is muddled but that is a product of the phrase itself.
In short, I’m all for rebuke of politicians for supporting bad ideas. I just want there to be room for them to change their mind.
I was hoping that if you had an example that it would help me understand how you were using the term cancelled.
Based upon your lack of example or clarification how would anyone be able to make sense of what you mean when you say:
“I don’t however agree permanent cancelling doesn’t happen, especially in a political context.”
Thus far your statement appears to have no clear meaning whatsoever. I can not agree or disagree with you. How could anyone?
So was Contrapoints cancelled? Obviously she still has an audience.
Of course she does which is why that usage of the term is silly. If you watch her video though she clearly suffered real and serious harm.
I have watched her video and I posted it and, yeah, real harm.
Can’t tell if you are being sarcastic? She describes feelings of loss of community, isolation, despair, depression and even suicidal ideation.