I was talking about Noah as opposed to Obama, but that does not even matter, like I said before this article is not breaking any new ground which was my original point. Do you want to comment on that, or do you want to move the goalpost?
I'm not sure I ever disputed your point regarding the content of the article. I found it unusual to see an article like this in a magazine like The Nation. Trevor Noah is not who I'd consider a typical representative of the American Left, given his stand-up comic roots.
Dude you find a lot of other articles in left leaning publications if you actually look. Just google cancel culture is bad, and a Vox article is in the top 5. The second wave of “cancel culture” - Vox https://www.vox.com › cancel-culture-free-speech-acco.. May 5, 2021 — Taken in bad faith, however, “cancel culture” becomes an omniscient and dangerous specter: a woke, online social justice mob that's ready to ...
I have a different reading of that sentence than you, in context: Taken in good faith, the concept of “canceling” a person is really about questions of accountability — about how to navigate a social and public sphere in which celebrities, politicians, and other public figures who say or do bad things continue to have significant platforms and influence. In fact, actor LeVar Burton recently suggested the entire idea should be recast as “consequence culture.” “I think it’s misnamed,” Burton told the hosts of The View. “I think we have a consequence culture. And that consequences are finally encompassing everybody in the society, whereas they haven’t been ever in this country.” Within the realm of good faith, the larger conversation around these questions can then expand to contain nuanced considerations of what the consequences of public misbehavior should be, how and when to rehabilitate the reputation of someone who’s been “canceled,” and who gets to decide those things. "Taken in bad faith, however, “cancel culture” becomes an omniscient and dangerous specter: a woke, online social justice mob that’s ready to rise up and attack anyone, even other progressives, at the merest sign of dissent. And it’s this — the fear of a nebulous mob of cancel-happy rabble-rousers — that conservatives have used to their political advantage." The author is saying that there's a "good faith" way of looking at it and a "bad faith" way of looking at it -- and the latter is what conservatives are exploiting as a cudgel against the left. The rest of the piece is about how cancel culture is a good thing when it's used to redistribute power to those who usually have less of it, but it can be bad if conservatives exploit fears over it to actually protect people in power. That's a very different message from what that article in The Nation was presenting.
I’ve noticed and it’s worrisome. We all have lives outside of this little world. Maybe he’s just taking a hiatus.
What does that sentence have to do with anything. The point was questioning cancel culture is nothing new and the publication you were so interested in had been doing it for 2 years before the current article. You are also interpreting it to fit as needed, thereby showing a prime example of good and bad faith. The point once again is that "progressive" media and persons have been saying cancel culture is not a good thing for a while, you just have seemed to miss it or ignored it.
Anyone know what happened to @jiggyfly? Hope he’s just taking a break from the site but he used to post a lot
When liberals try to cancel something, the call it cancel culture. When the right tries to cancel something, they call it justice.
