Poll of the Day > Republicans: Why can't they peacefully protest?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also Republicans: I will never watch the NFL or NBA again because the players are peaceful protesting.

---

Republicans: Democrats are trying to control people with "Cancel Culture" because they can't tolerate free speech

Also Republicans: I will never watch the NFL or NBA again or buy Goodyear tires or purchase Nike products because they offended me


---

Enjoy November! I know I will!

Clench281 posted...

Republicans: Democrats are trying to control people with "Cancel Culture" because they can't tolerate free speech

Also Republicans: I will never watch the NFL or NBA again or buy Goodyear tires or purchase Nike products because they offended me

Can you really not distinguish between giant tech corporations cooperating with each other and governments to demometize/silence people and an individual making a choice not to buy something?

OhhhJa posted...

Can you really not distinguish between giant tech corporations cooperating with each other and governments to demometize/silence people and an individual making a choice not to buy something?

Republicans: Corporations should have freedom to operate without government interference.

Also Republicans: We must call for federal hearings about private companies making decisions about the content they allow on their privately owned website.

---

kangolcone posted...

Republicans: Corporations should have freedom to operate without government interference.

Also Republicans: We must call for federal hearings about private companies making decisions about the content they allow on their privately owned website.

"Private companies"

OhhhJa posted...

Can you really not distinguish between giant tech corporations cooperating with each other and governments to demometize/silence people and an individual making a choice not to buy something?

One is an example of successfully manipulating capitalism to effect the desired change, while the other is an example of failing to do so. That's the main difference I see.

---

adjl posted...

One is an example of successfully manipulating capitalism to effect the desired change, while the other is an example of failing to do so. That's the main difference I see.

Yes it's an excellent example of crony capitalism for sure

OhhhJa posted...

Can you really not distinguish between giant tech corporations cooperating with each other and governments to demometize/silence people and an individual making a choice not to buy something?

You mean, China?
Got it.

---

OhhhJa posted...

"Private companies"

Are you saying that Facebook is owned by the government and Mark Zuckerberg does not profit from it?

Some of yall are hilarious.

---

OhhhJa posted...

Yes it's an excellent example of crony capitalism for sure

Not really. It's an example of consumers voting with their wallets. Views and actions that are unpopular enough to impact the bottom line are stopped, ones that aren't unpopular enough to have an appreciable impact are allowed to continue.

Really, "cancel culture" is just the "if you don't like it, don't buy it!" strategy capitalists like touting being employed on a large enough scale to actually change something. The only difference between it and smaller-scale applications of that strategy is that it's working, which is pissing off conservatives because they convinced themselves that the viewpoints in question were too unpopular to ever reach such a point.

---

Judgmenl posted...

You mean, China?
Got it.

Even if it's simply China which it isn't, you lose your private company defense in my eyes. Especially when you have protections that other actual private companies don't have

adjl posted...

Not really. It's an example of consumers voting with their wallets. Views and actions that are unpopular enough to impact the bottom line are stopped, ones that aren't unpopular enough to have an appreciable impact are allowed to continue.

Really, "cancel culture" is just the "if you don't like it, don't buy it!" strategy capitalists like touting being employed on a large enough scale to actually change something. The only difference between it and smaller-scale applications of that strategy is that it's working, which is pissing off conservatives because they convinced themselves that the viewpoints in question were too unpopular to ever reach such a point.

So all tech companies demonetizing someone simultaneously without terms of use violations isnt crony capitalism (Many of whom are niche people that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't even know about)? Yeah, ok

OhhhJa posted...

Even if it's simply China which it isn't, you lose your private company defense in my eyes. Especially when you have protections that other actual private companies don't have

Like the Chinese government? Got it.

---

Clench281 posted...

Republicans: Democrats are trying to control people with "Cancel Culture" because they can't tolerate free speech

Also Republicans: I will never watch the NFL or NBA again or buy Goodyear tires or purchase Nike products because they offended me

Remember the Dixie Chicks?

Republicans sure dont

---

OhhhJa posted...

So all tech companies demonetizing someone simultaneously without terms of use violations isnt crony capitalism (Many of whom are niche people that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't even know about)? Yeah, ok

Private businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason

---

OhhhJa posted...

So all tech companies demonetizing someone simultaneously without terms of use violations isnt crony capitalism (Many of whom are niche people that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't even know about)? Yeah, ok

That's not what "cancel culture" is referring to. I'm not sure why you're going off on that in response to a comment on cancel culture.

---

adjl posted...

That's not what "cancel culture" is referring to. I'm not sure why you're going off on that in response to a comment on cancel culture.

that's an aspect of cancel culture. removing people from their platform based on their politics

MrMelodramatic posted...

Private businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason

Uhhhh... You know that isn't true right?

OhhhJa posted...

Uhhhh... You know that isn't true right?

Unless youre discriminating against a protected class, it pretty much is

---

MrMelodramatic posted...

Unless youre discriminating against a protected class, it pretty much is

Just making sure you knew that

OhhhJa posted...

Just making sure you knew that

Okay, but how does any of this

OhhhJa posted...

So all tech companies demonetizing someone simultaneously without terms of use violations isnt crony capitalism (Many of whom are niche people that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't even know about)? Yeah, ok

discriminate against a protected class?
or do you agree that these companies have the right to refuse service to anyone, and are expressing that right.

---

MrMelodramatic posted...

Okay, but how does any of this

discriminate against a protected class?
or do you agree that these companies have the right to refuse service to anyone, and are expressing that right.

I just said it was crony capitalism at work. Didn't say it was necessarily illegal

OhhhJa posted...

Just making sure you knew that

You seemed kinda sad about that.

---

Fam_Fam posted...

that's an aspect of cancel culture. removing people from their platform based on their politics

Oh so was it cancel culture in the 60s when protesting black people had fire hoses and dogs turned on them? When they literally had the shit beat out of them for riding a bus or sitting at a lunch counter? They were trying to express free speech and the government cancelled them?

So basically southern conservatives invented cancel culture.

---

HornedLion posted...

You seemed kinda sad about that.

As long as you're not part of a protected class, I'm quite fine with it

OhhhJa posted...

As long as you're not part of a protected class, I'm quite fine with it

Part of? That isn't really how it works. The only 'protected class' that you can really be 'part of' is being over 40.

---

conservatives are walking contradictions and love to lap up propaganda

---

kangolcone posted...

So basically southern conservatives invented cancel culture.

White people invented cancel culture you say?! Then you should REALLY hate it!

Clench281 posted...

Part of? That isn't really how it works. The only 'protected class' that you can really be 'part of' is being over 40.

Dont Republicans know they are legally obligated to agree with the NBAs stance now because they protested peacefully?!

Wanting people to peacefully protest is about them not rioting, looting, burning things up. Refusing to watch the NBA is about not supporting their stance, regardless of how they choose to protest.

---

samuricex posted...

Dont Republicans know they are legally obligated to agree with the NBAs stance now because they protested peacefully?!

Wanting people to peacefully protest is about them not rioting, looting, burning things up. Refusing to watch the NBA is about not supporting their stance, regardless of how they choose to protest.

They love their false equivalence. It's right out of the "I'm too politically biased for critical thinking" playback

It's funny how cult-like all this stuff is with BLM and kneeling. Kaepernick kneeled so now we all must kneel or support their kneeling. Or we must put the BLM sticker on the windows of our businesses or else we're racist. Sorry, I'll pass on the kool aid

OhhhJa posted...

White people invented cancel culture you say?! Then you should REALLY hate it!

you can tell someone is really smart when they can only interpret anti-racism as anti-white

OhhhJa posted...

Kaepernick kneeled so now we all must kneel or support their kneeling. Or we must put the BLM sticker on the windows of our businesses or else we're racist.

talk about false equivalence lol

---

samuricex posted...

Refusing to watch the NBA is about not supporting their stance, regardless of how they choose to protest.

Don't be misleading. The conservative argument was about the manner of protest being disrespectful, as opposed to the context of the message.

The same is true with BLM in general. People rarely come out against the context of the movement, but rather the manner in which it's presented (i.e. phrasing of Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter).

This is because you can't disagree with the content of the BLM message without overtly admitting that you're racist. You have nothing left to argue against, except the manner in which it's presented


---

Didnt they try to cancel freaking Honey Grahams or something because one of their commercials merely had a gay couple in it

theyre such snowflakes that they cant even be reminded that gay people exist without losing their minds

---

samuricex posted...

Refusing to watch the NBA is about not supporting their stance, regardless of how they choose to protest.

So people are refusing to watch the NBA because they disagree with the position that racially biased police brutality is bad? That sounds several orders of magnitude worse than just being a hypocrite.

Mead posted...

Didnt they try to cancel freaking Honey Grahams or something because one of their commercials merely had a gay couple in it

theyre such snowflakes that they cant even be reminded that gay people exist without losing their minds

Also that one time the Hallmark channel aired a commercial that showed gay people and they called for the channel to be boycotted.

---

OhhhJa posted...

Can you really not distinguish between giant tech corporations cooperating with each other and governments to demometize/silence people and an individual making a choice not to buy something?

It's pretty obvious that they're incapable of understanding the difference. They're also incapable of understanding that everybody who disagrees with their idiocy isn't a Republican, but that's kinda what happens when people are far enough to the left that they can barely see the field any more so everybody looks the same.

adjl posted...

Not really. It's an example of consumers voting with their wallets. Views and actions that are unpopular enough to impact the bottom line are stopped, ones that aren't unpopular enough to have an appreciable impact are allowed to continue.

Really, "cancel culture" is just the "if you don't like it, don't buy it!" strategy capitalists like touting being employed on a large enough scale to actually change something. The only difference between it and smaller-scale applications of that strategy is that it's working, which is pissing off conservatives because they convinced themselves that the viewpoints in question were too unpopular to ever reach such a point.

Except it's really not. Cancel Culture is, at the very least, a far more extreme version of a organized protest and boycott (overlooking that most of the cancelers never used the products in question nor would they ever use the products in question -- instead they move from protest to protest). If you're not buying a product in the first place but angrily insisting something not be done while posting personal details about employees, etc, and inviting people to attack them and their families, you're not "voting with your wallet" because your wallet never comes into play. "Voting with your wallet" is a term associated with the most passive form of a personal boycott. It generally doesn't even rise to the level of a protest.

Not to mention that the phrase "voting with your wallet" generally always referred to things associated with the company's business practices, not disagreements with stances held by employees. Cancel Culture is unique in the regard that it tolerates no dissent of any kind and acts as a kind of universal gatekeeping movement. Broadly speaking, it's unlike anything that came before it, considering that they lacked the organization, consistent effort, clout, and had limits to what they were willing to do. Many people involved in Cancel Culture have no moral qualms at all, with some going so far as to dox and harass the preteen children of people they dislike.

---

Zeus posted...

It's pretty obvious that they're incapable of understanding the difference. They're also incapable of understanding that everybody who disagrees with their idiocy isn't a Republican, but that's kinda what happens when people are far enough to the left that they can barely see the field any more so everybody looks the same.

The point may have been lost on you, but the point is that 'cancel culture' isn't specific to either side of the political spectrum. Not that everyone who disagrees is a republican.

Further, LOL at arguing that republicans are 'individuals making their own choices' while democrats are top-down government control via cancel culture, when the literal republican president of the united states is encouraging people to 'cancel' things

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

you can tell someone is really smart when they can only interpret anti-racism as anti-white

Yeah because someone clearly isn't talking about white people when they're referring to southern conservatives attacking civil rights of black people

adjl posted...

So people are refusing to watch the NBA because they disagree with the position that racially biased police brutality is bad? That sounds several orders of magnitude worse than just being a hypocrite.

Sure, that's bad even if it is completely overblown. I mean these examples of police brutality are in the news several times a year. And almost always its later found that they fought with the police, had a gun, or both. I dont feel sorry for anyone getting killed after fighting with the police and pulling a gun. Are there examples of police wrongfully killing blacks (and whites)? Absolutely.

I'll keep watching sports as I have been but I'm not gonna pretend that I think these athletes actually give a shit and arent just doing it to keep their brand intact. Or maybe they all just simultaneously decided they care about police brutality?

you are dumb as hell dude

---

Clench281 posted...

Don't be misleading. The conservative argument was about the manner of protest being disrespectful, as opposed to the context of the message.

Why can't it be both and more? Some people were offended by the kneeling, others were not. People are now tired of the politics and if the NBA wants to throw it in the viewers faces, some people are going to tune out.

The same is true with BLM in general. People rarely come out against the context of the movement, but rather the manner in which it's presented (i.e. phrasing of Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter).

This is because you can't disagree with the content of the BLM message without overtly admitting that you're racist. You have nothing left to argue against, except the manner in which it's presented

People rarely come out against the message of the movement because most people would agree that black lives do matter. What people don't agree with is the organization Black Lives Matter and their methods to get attention.

adjl posted...

So people are refusing to watch the NBA because they disagree with the position that racially biased police brutality is bad?

Strawman to the max.

---

kangolcone posted...

Oh so was it cancel culture in the 60s when protesting black people had fire hoses and dogs turned on them? When they literally had the shit beat out of them for riding a bus or sitting at a lunch counter? They were trying to express free speech and the government cancelled them?

So basically southern conservatives invented cancel culture.

that's a bit different, unless you are talking about silencing high-profile individuals with a platform that people were trying to remove, in which case...I guess it's similar? I'm guessing you think that was a bad thing?

DirtBasedSoap posted...

you are dumb as hell dude

Oh no the unemployed crackhead looking guy who's gf just left him is calling me dumb

Im still with my gf and I got a job. I dont look like a crackhead but good to know I struck a nerve. Cant argue any real points so you attack me personally lmao

before you say I attacked you personally first, I called you dumb because you really seem to have a hard time understanding other points of view and lack empathy, so its a pretty fair point.

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Cant argue any real points so you attack me personally lmao

You just called me stupid twice in a row instead of actually debating anything of substance. Get real dude lol

okay, yeah youre really smart and are making great points worth addressing. Get real.

---

And bowing down to whatever the latest outrage is doesnt mean I lack empathy. My empathy is focused on those I care about. I think, ironically enough, most of the constantly outraged crowd are extreme narcissists

DirtBasedSoap posted...

okay, yeah youre really smart and are making great points worth addressing. Get real.

Your original response to me wasn't even relevant to what I was actually discussing lol. Anti racism had nothing to do with what we were even talking about

samuricex posted...

Strawman to the max.

Not remotely. That is the stance the NBA is taking with by protesting in this method. If you're going to talk about disagreeing with that stance, then you are talking about disagreeing with the stance that racially biased police brutality is bad. That's not a strawman, that is the literal meaning of what you said.

OhhhJa posted...

I'll keep watching sports as I have been but I'm not gonna pretend that I think these athletes actually give a s*** and arent just doing it to keep their brand intact. Or maybe they all just simultaneously decided they care about police brutality?

Given how many NBA players grew up in lower-class black communities (basketball being a popular pastime in such areas because it's one of the cheapest sports), I'd be willing to wager that considerably more of them are personally invested in the issue than you seem to think. It wasn't so much a simultaneous decision to care as it was public opinion reaching a point where the executives running their teams were willing to let them protest in such a manner.

---

OhhhJa posted...

Anti racism had nothing to do with what we were even talking about

OhhhJa posted...

White people invented cancel culture you say?! Then you should REALLY hate it!

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah because someone clearly isn't talking about white people when they're referring to southern conservatives attacking civil rights of black people

lol YOU ARE SO SMART!

poor white people :(

---