General > General Technical Chat

Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

<< < (118/222) > >>

Kim Christensen:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 11, 2023, 01:25:12 am ---For example again, there were talks and demands, even from politicans and others in power during the covid mass hysteria that people who refused to take the vaccine should be denied hospital treatment or organ transplants etc. Literal life saving "cancellation".
--- End quote ---

Yet that never happened. No one was ever denied treatment.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 11, 2023, 12:19:53 am ---A core part of cancellation (or shunning, as it has been described in history) is that some things are beyond questioning.  This is evil, because all the progress humankind has ever made can be tracked down to asking questions.  This, and not any particular political view, is what we must denounce for logic and rationality to prevail, and future generations to have a better world.

--- End quote ---
Is it though?
--- End quote ---
Yes, I truly believe so, based on everything I've read about human history and human societies.


--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
--- End quote ---
Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
(Although, it is a pet peeve of mine that such laws are very selectively enforced here in Finland right now.)

For example, I do believe we should ask questions on whether death penalty is necessary, and why; exactly what constitutes rape; and so on.

I would definitely allow someone to "advocate" murder by publicly advocating death penalty for certain crimes, for example.  (The last capital punishment in peacetime in Finland was in 1825, by the way.)


--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---I would hardly think that the "cancelling", of a person who used their fame to advocate for those types of things, would be the greater evil.
--- End quote ---
I do believe it would be.

First, exposing bad ideas for what they are works much better than hiding or banning them.

Second, any boundary you set for things beyond questioning, will be exploited, by silencing those who pose a political risk to those in control of the position of the boundary.  It has always been, and such things always will be, because we are humans: there are always those who look for personal gain.

Third, speech and communication is rife with errors.  For example, when I happen to say I believe we should emphasize therapy and mental health approaches over gender affirming surgeries, especially so for anyone under 25, am I being compassionate or transphobic?  I believe so based on what I know about "temporary" gender dysphoria being common in adolescents (part of growing up, really), and I want us to support every individual in a way that gives the best chance for each individual to be happy.  There is absolutely no transphobia or anything like that in my opinion: it is based purely on compassion.
Let's say you disagree, and truly believe that I am anti-trans and blocking people from their happiness.  Who gets to decide what my utterance means?  Who gets to decide whether regardless of my intent, my utterances are worthy of cancellation?
I could maybe accept a panel, including psychologists and linguists, discussing each case at length, and then making a decision –– somewhat similar to a court of law ––; but I for sure will not accept mob rule on this.

Based on individual human psychology, and proper models of rational human behaviour (for example, game theory), I have no option but consider shunning/cancellation much, much worse, than its apparent benefits.

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 11, 2023, 01:51:12 am ---I'm sure someone will argue that newspapers have been trained to preemptively pull authors who say stupid crap. But what about the agency of the newspapers here?
--- End quote ---
I honestly thought we discussed this already.

The majority just wants to live their lives in peace, and not risk anything because of something that does not impact their personal lives.

The true effect of cancellation or shunning is not that the target loses their livelihood, it is the fear it induces in the majority.  It is that fear that makes the majority keep quiet, not rock the boat.

Kim Christensen:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 11, 2023, 02:00:46 am ---
--- Quote from: Kim Christensen on March 11, 2023, 01:13:57 am ---If someone advocated murder, theft, rape, etc is this something that our society should allow?
--- End quote ---
Advocate ≠ question.  We already have laws to punish those who "advocate" (say, exhort) others to break the law.
--- End quote ---

Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 11, 2023, 01:51:12 am ---
--- Quote from: james_s on March 11, 2023, 01:18:30 am ---Nothing belongs in the list of banned ideas, and the act of cancelling (mob bullying) is always evil, period.

--- End quote ---

Let's flip this script for a moment. As far as I'm able to tell (so correct me if I'm wrong) the discontinuing of the Dilbert comics from all the major newspapers happened before there was any mob rallied up to petition the newspapers to do so. If anything, it seems that as soon as Adams said what he said, they were already pulling it.

--- End quote ---

His syndication company parted ways with him. That instantly gets the strip pulled from everything everywhere, and books deal gone, the whole shebang.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod