Database of "Canceled" People

[MightyGiants]

The original post of this thread expresses no opinion. You reacted to it as though it did, so I'll repeat the hackneyed expression, "don't kill the messenger just because you don't like the message."

Bob

It occurred to me that perhaps you are not familiar with the science of framing.  It's a relatively new field but it's one that has quite a few scholars involved.   Essentially you can convey an opinion and try to sway people to your way of thinking, simply by how you frame a discussion.   In your case instead of framing your discussion in terms of free speech you opted for an extremely partisan framing device used by propandists.   


Here is a good intro on framing

Summary
Political communicators have long used framing as a tactic to try to influence the opinions and political decisions of others. Frames capture an essence of a political issue or controversy, typically the essence that best furthers a communicator

[DaveBrown74]

MG,

You consistently refer to the "right wing propaganda machine." Are you really suggesting the conversative message is more prevalent in mass media than the liberal one? I wholeheartedly disagree with that. The liberal message is dominant in:

-Basically every major news network except one
-The vast majority of major newspapers like the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Detroit Free Press, etc.
-Virtually all of Hollywood
-All of Big Tech (this alone is huge)
-Music industry
-Television and streaming services

Etc etc etc.

The country may be half conservative, but the same does not apply to mass media that we are all exposed to everyday. So when you use the word "propaganda" and claim that it only applies to the right, that sounds astonishingly biased and isn't really backed up by facts, given the disprportionate share of exposure we all have to the left wing message.

And I feel I am being reasonable in using the word "message" where you choose to insert the word "propaganda."

[Bob In PA]

It occurred to me that perhaps you are not familiar with the science of framing.  It's a relatively new field but it's one that has quite a few scholars involved.   Essentially you can convey an opinion and try to sway people to your way of thinking, simply by how you frame a discussion.   In your case instead of framing your discussion in terms of free speech you opted for an extremely partisan framing device used by propandists.   

Rich: It's just a fancy way of saying "loaded question." It's not science, but a gadget used to try to win arguments, and there's nothing new about it... political pollsters have been asking loaded questions forever.  Bob

[Bob In PA]

MG,

You consistently refer to the "right wing propaganda machine." Are you really suggesting the conversative message is more prevalent in mass media than the liberal one? I wholeheartedly disagree with that. The liberal message is dominant in:

-Basically every major news network except one
-The vast majority of major newspapers like the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Detroit Free Press, etc.
-Virtually all of Hollywood
-All of Big Tech (this alone is huge)
-Music industry
-Television and streaming services

Etc etc etc.

The country may be half conservative, but the same does not apply to mass media that we are all exposed to everyday. So when you use the word "propaganda" and claim that it only applies to the right, that sounds astonishingly biased and isn't really backed up by facts, given the disprportionate share of exposure we all have to the left wing message.

And I feel I am being reasonable in using the word "message" where you choose to insert the word "propaganda."

DB: I've failed with that very argument several times previously, but IMO you have presented it much better/clearer than I ever did, so maybe you've got a shot at getting the message across.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

MG,

You consistently refer to the "right wing propaganda machine." Are you really suggesting the conversative message is more prevalent in mass media than the liberal one? I wholeheartedly disagree with that. The liberal message is dominant in:

-Basically every major news network except one
-The vast majority of major newspapers like the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Detroit Free Press, etc.
-Virtually all of Hollywood
-All of Big Tech (this alone is huge)
-Music industry
-Television and streaming services

Etc etc etc.

The country may be half conservative, but the same does not apply to mass media that we are all exposed to everyday. So when you use the word "propaganda" and claim that it only applies to the right, that sounds astonishingly biased and isn't really backed up by facts, given the disprportionate share of exposure we all have to the left wing message.

And I feel I am being reasonable in using the word "message" where you choose to insert the word "propaganda."

Here is former Republican House speaker- By JOHN BOEHNER

By 2011, the right-wing propaganda nuts had managed to turn Obama into a toxic brand for conservatives. When I was first elected to Congress, we didn

[DaveBrown74]

So I am hardly the only one who recognizes reality.  People on both sides of the aisle see it.

MG,

I am certainly not denying that there are kooks on the right. There is no question about that. But there are on the left as well. There are plenty of extreme and misguided individuals and groups on both sides of the aisle. I don't know a single fair-minded adult who thinks otherwise. Anyone on either side who claims that their side is populated solely by well-meaning, sane, reasonable individuals and that the other side is all crazies and propaganda spreaders is biased and lost to the point of being incapable of having a rational discussion about any political topic.

Any individual will have the end of the spectrum with which they most identify, and that is obviously fine, but once they go down the road of claiming/implying anyone else with an opposing view is irrational or spreading propaganda, all while ignoring or even condoning similar behavior on their own side, loses credibility quickly with any reasonable, fair-minded adult. This to me qualifies as an ad hominem attack, which as we know is a fallacious line of reasoning in any debate. Further, I think it is condescending and wrong to claim that anyone who has different beliefs from those one favors has been brainwashed by a supposed propaganda machine, implying that this individual is too stupid or weak to think for himself and formulate his own viewpoints, unlike the individual making the accusation who of course has thought everything out for himself.

People are always going to disagree. Right-leaning people are not going anywhere, and neither are left-leaning people. They will have to continue to co-exist. I would prefer, and hence I try to promote myself, a less accusatory and less caustic tone in the national discourse than what I am seeing from both sides lately, particularly in the last five years or so. I don't see how constantly pointing the finger at the other side and claiming people are brainwashed or are spreading "propaganda" promotes any sort of constructive dialogue. Rather, I try to listen to the other side, disagree respectfully when I disagree, summarize my rationale for disagreement, and then have a thoughtful and fair discussion. Name calling and complete close-mindedness to any remotely different view does not seem constructive to me. Sadly, so many people on both sides don't seem to agree.

[MightyGiants]

MG,

I am certainly not denying that there are kooks on the right. There is no question about that. But there are on the left as well. There are plenty of extreme and misguided individuals and groups on both sides of the aisle. I don't know a single fair-minded adult who thinks otherwise. Anyone on either side who claims that their side is populated solely by well-meaning, sane, reasonable individuals and that the other side is all crazies and propaganda spreaders is biased and lost to the point of being incapable of having a rational discussion about any political topic.

Any individual will have the end of the spectrum with which they most identify, and that is obviously fine, but once they go down the road of claiming/implying anyone else with an opposing view is irrational or spreading propaganda, all while ignoring or even condoning similar behavior on their own side, loses credibility quickly with any reasonable, fair-minded adult. This to me qualifies as an ad hominem attack, which as we know is a fallacious line of reasoning in any debate. Further, I think it is condescending and wrong to claim that anyone who has different beliefs from those one favors has been brainwashed by a supposed propaganda machine, implying that this individual is too stupid or weak to think for himself and formulate his own viewpoints, unlike the individual making the accusation who of course has thought everything out for himself.

People are always going to disagree. Right-leaning people are not going anywhere, and neither are left-leaning people. They will have to continue to co-exist. I would prefer, and hence I try to promote myself, a less accusatory and less caustic tone in the national discourse than what I am seeing from both sides lately, particularly in the last five years or so. I don't see how constantly pointing the finger at the other side and claiming people are brainwashed or are spreading "propaganda" promotes any sort of constructive dialogue. Rather, I try to listen to the other side, disagree respectfully when I disagree, summarize my rationale for disagreement, and then have a thoughtful and fair discussion. Name calling and complete close-mindedness to any remotely different view does not seem constructive to me. Sadly, so many people on both sides don't seem to agree.

DB,

Your comments are so thoughtful, respectful, and well laid out.   It really puts me in a bind.   Despite all the positives, your point is fundamentally flawed.   I am talking about the right-wing propaganda network that both sides (when being honest) fully acknowledge exist.    Hell, President Trump even called for a major component FOX News be boycotted because it wasn't propaganda enough for his liking.  This network is as well funded as it is destructive.  It starts with right-wing think tanks that create the talking points and framing (although under Trump, he often did that instead).   It's an echo chamber where they repeat the same stories and utilize the same tactics and even knowing propagate false information like the factually incorrect claims that the election was stolen.

While you laid out reasonable points about there being a right and a left and there being radicals on both sides of the ideological spectrum, that doesn't address the right-wing propaganda machine or the destructive effect it has on our nation.

On January 6, thousands of crazed Americans attacked our nation's capital seeking to overthrow our democracy inspired by lies that the right-wing propaganda network both propagated and conditioned people to accept.    That is a truly unprecedented event and has literally nothing to do with your "both sides" talk.

Nor, it that an isolated issue.  Look at Covid and the vaccine.  We need something like 80% of our nation to get the vaccine to achieve herd immunity and stop the spread of Covid.  Yet,  44% of Republicans say they do not intend to get vaccinated while 92% of Democrats have been vaccinated or intend to be.     I don't believe that Republicans are inherently stupid or anti-American and that's why they want to harm the nation by not getting vaccinated.   Yes, I said, "harm" and that sadly is not hyperbole.     Here is the thing as long as people are being infected by Covid, there is a risk with every single infection that a new mutation will develop that will defeat the vaccine and put us back to the beginning.   It's literally a race between getting everyone vaccinated (around the world really) and the virus mutating to defeat our vaccine.    Yet thanks to the right-wing propaganda network we literally have 44% of Republicans kneecapping our efforts to defeat the virus. 

That is a very real problem and again has nothing to do with your both sides discussion.

So I appreciate the courtesy you showed and the generally respectful tone, but you really didn't address the topic at hand.


To circle back to Bob's original right-wing framing, Bob is very unhappy that people an organizations that are pushing false Covid vaccine claims on social media are being "canceled"

[Bob In PA]

Rich: This thread is now at least 5 pages long and you still haven't addressed the main contention in my original post... comparing today's "cancel culture" to McCarthyism of the 1950's.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: This thread is now at least 5 pages long and you still haven't addressed the main contention in my original post... comparing today's "cancel culture" to McCarthyism of the 1950's.  Bob

Bob,

The reality is you want to have a discussion about freedom of speech but recent events would have that discussion come down to this-  Do people have a right to yell fire in a crowded movie house?

You know that's not a winning (for your side) discussion, so you created the false framing of being held accountable for false or destructive statements is the same as people fired just for being a member of a political party.

Sorry, but I don't think the front porch should become an extension of the right-wing propaganda machine. Hell, I don't think it should be a platform of any propaganda right or left.  I think this forum should be for discussions, not promoting political positions.

Edit to add:  Imagine how far one needs to go off the beaten path to equate people who lost their social media accounts for inciting attacks on our government by promoting proven lies about election fraud, with people who lost their jobs and couldn't get another because at one time they were a member of an unpopular political party.   You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get there or just sit back and listen to right-wing propaganda and let them do the mental gymnastics for you.

[Bob In PA]

Imagine how far one needs to go off the beaten path to equate people who lost their social media accounts for inciting attacks on our government by promoting proven lies about election fraud, with people who lost their jobs and couldn't get another because at one time they were a member of an unpopular political party.

Rich: Last time I checked, not a single person in the database was canceled for "inciting attacks on our government." They were canceled because of their beliefs, as were the men and women in the 1950's.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: Last time I checked, not a single person in the database was canceled for "inciting attacks on our government." They were canceled because of their beliefs, as were the men and women in the 1950's.  Bob

Yeah, if you "believed" the lie that the election was stolen, and you pushed that false claim that incited rioting (and justified voter suppression laws), one could technically claim that one was "canceled because of their beliefs".  However, the best that could be said about such a claim was that it was wildly misleading.  It would be beyond disingenuous to compare it to the right-wing movement of the 50s to punish people for belonging or have belonged to a political party.   

Such flawed thinking is very dangerous to our nation.  We have seen such false victimization narratives drive people to do very bad things.

[Bob In PA]

Yeah, if you "believed" the lie that the election was stolen, and you pushed that false claim that incited rioting (and justified voter suppression laws), one could technically claim that one was "canceled because of their beliefs".  However, the best that could be said about such a claim was that it was wildly misleading.  It would be beyond disingenuous to compare it to the right-wing movement of the 50s to punish people for belonging or have belonged to a political party.   

Such flawed thinking is very dangerous to our nation.  We have seen such false victimization narratives drive people to do very bad things.

Rich: Not a single person in the database claimed the election was stolen, nor had anything to do with inciting a riot or voter suppression laws.  Maybe it's time you actually read the database.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: Not a single person in the database claimed the election was stolen, nor had anything to do with inciting a riot or voter suppression laws.  Maybe it's time you actually read the database.  Bob

This post reminds me of the old saying, "be careful of what you wish for".   The funny thing about that database that you are promoting on our forum, is it's owners went to great lengths to hide their identities (and by extension their funding).     Their "about" page has absolutely no clue who they are, not even a hint.   The website also paid to have the ownership of the website itself hidden from the public.

So beyond the obvious, what made you think that this website was a credible source of information?

[Bob In PA]

This post reminds me of the old saying, "be careful of what you wish for".   The funny thing about that database that you are promoting on our forum, it's owners went to great lengths to hide their identities.     Their "about" page has absolutely no clue who they are, not even a hint.   The website also paid to have the ownership of the website itself hidden from the public.

So beyond the obvious, what made you think that this website was a credible source of information?

Rich: First, the database is searchable for key words, so you can easily see that none of them relate to any of the topics you've been talking about (election, rioting, other illegal acts, etc.).

Second, the owner's identity is immaterial to the correctness of entries. Let me know if you find any that are wrong. I checked about a fourth (or maybe a third) of them and found them all to be correct.

Lastly, either the site itself (or news articles written about the site) tell you why they're hiding their identities, and the answer is obvious.  They don't want to fall victim to the same fate as the people in the database.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Second, the owner's identity is immaterial to the correctness of entries.

Bob

That is an interesting assertion.  If I go on the main forum and post a topic that says "an anonymous internet source from an anonymous website says the Giants are drafting Ojulari guaranteed", or "I heard read on realGiantsinsider.com a post from an anonymous author who says that Joe Judge hates Gettleman's guts", I would lose all credibility and be the subject of well-deserved criticism and mockery.

Why would we change the standard for facts in this discussion so drastically?  When did we establish the standard of, "if it's on the internet it must be true"?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-pHe879l60