I can see where you are coming from, Ben, but I disagree. To me, that's moral relativism and it's something we can't afford. The attack on Tony Jones is wrong. Cancelling a fascist is right. The Charlie Hebdo attackers were wrong. The Charlie Hebdo staff didn't deserve to be killed but neither should they have been free of consequences for punching down by attacking Muslims. Richard Spencer being punched in the face was right. Etc.
It's a case by case basis thing.
I personally don't get offended by anything. But what I am seeing that there is a rising tide of fascism and we will fight back. Including by attempting to ruin and cancel fascists. Because they deserve it:)
Of course I see where you are coming from also, but then the "case by case" thing is very important. Case by case, I could have different opinions on whether "cancelling a fascist" is right, due to the fact that without specifics I wouldn't know what "cancelling" means (which is why I don't actually like the term itself), or how "fascist" is defined. It's become pretty clear to me over the years that people use the term "fascist" far too flexibly for me to ever agree with a blanket definition of what should be done to fascists. It's like the punching of Richard Spencer: I don't much care what happens to Richard Spencer's face, but if someone says that it's good to punch Nazis, I would hesitate on two fronts: firstly because I don't see what earthly good it does, and it's far more likely to work to the Nazi's advantage by allowing him to claim victimhood than it is to actually hurt the Nazi's cause; secondly because in practice "I think we should punch Nazis" will in many cases equate to "I think we should punch anyone I want to punch, and I will personally define them as Nazis for my own purposes". Likewise, "cancelling fascists" tends in practice to turn out as "do whatever I feel like to anyone I think deserves it". And I'm not really willing to let any single individual define who is and isn't deserving of punishment in this way. Plenty of people were willing to call Charlie Hebdo fascists, and the act of murdering them as therefore justified. It's just too easy to do. But as you say, let's take it case by case: if you give me a specific example of someone you think is a fascist, and the action you think should be taken against them, maybe I'll agree. Or maybe I won't. Can't say.
Hi, Ben :) I definitely appreciate your reply.. thank you very much.
Of course, this can become a slippery slope. But my thing is, surely I myself have no power to cancel or shut anyone down? I can only do it together with other people. So we don't need to worry how I will define a fascist - quite a few people will have to agree with my definition in order for this to work.
In fact, cancelling someone should not even be made into a big deal - the fact is, anytime someone goes against community attitudes, they will have a bad time. That's been the case throughout history, back to to Socrates and the practice of ostracism in Ancient Greece (so, really, people now should be thankful they only get cancelled :P)
I mean, what else are we going to do with these people except try to shut them down? I don't think I believe in dialogue anymore. Dialogue got us to Trump winning the presidency and Shorten losing to Scomo - all due to lies. These people are not acting in good faith:)
In terms of examples, hmm, let's say anyone involved in Turning Point Australia. The best action to take against them is clearly to boot them to the US and bar them from Australia. It's only fair :P
PS. I think I said this before but can I reiterate that I reckon you are one of the funniest comedians in the country..I love the MasterChef reviews😁
PPS. Apologies about the late reply..I'm not in Australia at the moment:)
I can see where you are coming from, Ben, but I disagree. To me, that's moral relativism and it's something we can't afford. The attack on Tony Jones is wrong. Cancelling a fascist is right. The Charlie Hebdo attackers were wrong. The Charlie Hebdo staff didn't deserve to be killed but neither should they have been free of consequences for punching down by attacking Muslims. Richard Spencer being punched in the face was right. Etc.
It's a case by case basis thing.
I personally don't get offended by anything. But what I am seeing that there is a rising tide of fascism and we will fight back. Including by attempting to ruin and cancel fascists. Because they deserve it:)
Just my two cents:)
Of course I see where you are coming from also, but then the "case by case" thing is very important. Case by case, I could have different opinions on whether "cancelling a fascist" is right, due to the fact that without specifics I wouldn't know what "cancelling" means (which is why I don't actually like the term itself), or how "fascist" is defined. It's become pretty clear to me over the years that people use the term "fascist" far too flexibly for me to ever agree with a blanket definition of what should be done to fascists. It's like the punching of Richard Spencer: I don't much care what happens to Richard Spencer's face, but if someone says that it's good to punch Nazis, I would hesitate on two fronts: firstly because I don't see what earthly good it does, and it's far more likely to work to the Nazi's advantage by allowing him to claim victimhood than it is to actually hurt the Nazi's cause; secondly because in practice "I think we should punch Nazis" will in many cases equate to "I think we should punch anyone I want to punch, and I will personally define them as Nazis for my own purposes". Likewise, "cancelling fascists" tends in practice to turn out as "do whatever I feel like to anyone I think deserves it". And I'm not really willing to let any single individual define who is and isn't deserving of punishment in this way. Plenty of people were willing to call Charlie Hebdo fascists, and the act of murdering them as therefore justified. It's just too easy to do. But as you say, let's take it case by case: if you give me a specific example of someone you think is a fascist, and the action you think should be taken against them, maybe I'll agree. Or maybe I won't. Can't say.
Hi, Ben :) I definitely appreciate your reply.. thank you very much.
Of course, this can become a slippery slope. But my thing is, surely I myself have no power to cancel or shut anyone down? I can only do it together with other people. So we don't need to worry how I will define a fascist - quite a few people will have to agree with my definition in order for this to work.
In fact, cancelling someone should not even be made into a big deal - the fact is, anytime someone goes against community attitudes, they will have a bad time. That's been the case throughout history, back to to Socrates and the practice of ostracism in Ancient Greece (so, really, people now should be thankful they only get cancelled :P)
I mean, what else are we going to do with these people except try to shut them down? I don't think I believe in dialogue anymore. Dialogue got us to Trump winning the presidency and Shorten losing to Scomo - all due to lies. These people are not acting in good faith:)
In terms of examples, hmm, let's say anyone involved in Turning Point Australia. The best action to take against them is clearly to boot them to the US and bar them from Australia. It's only fair :P
PS. I think I said this before but can I reiterate that I reckon you are one of the funniest comedians in the country..I love the MasterChef reviews😁
PPS. Apologies about the late reply..I'm not in Australia at the moment:)