Database of "Canceled" People

[Bob In PA]

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.

Rich: Your examples relate to unverifiable assertions. The "cancel" database info is easily verifiable; and the site owner welcomes/encourages feedback, and asks for viewers to point out any erroneous data.

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"?

Rich: We haven't changed the standard. The database is factual. No one has uncovered an error. You should feel free to criticize/mock me all you wish if you have nothing better to do.  It won't change the facts.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Beyond believing what is posted on an anonymous website (which is a standard I proudly don't subscribe to) there is the issue that even if you take the claims at face value, it only takes the word of people who got banned from various social media platforms.   As a forum moderator, you of all people would understand the difference between what people say they were banned for versus what people are actually banned for.   Rarely does a single post or action elicit a ban, it's usually based on patterns of behavior and escalating discipline measures


One other thing that struck me as "I should have seen it coming", was your effort to paint yourself as the victim.  I mean essentially the entire thread is founded on the right-wing tactic of false victimhood (that somehow people who got themselves banned from a social media site for breaking the rules are victims if they also happen to be conservatives), so guess it shouldn't surprise me when you tried to paint yourself as the victim when I properly called out your efforts to paint an anonymous website as a factual source. 

I am truly impressed by the right's use of false victimhood.  Not only does it distract from a fact and logic-based discussion (very helpful when most of the positions pushed by the right-wing propaganda machine don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny) but it fires up the emotions of anger and resentment which are great for priming people to be manipulated.  Throw in "fake news" and "deep-state" and you can effectively isolate an entire group of people from facts and incompatible opinions.

[Bob In PA]

... there is the issue that even if you take the claims at face value, it only takes the word of people who got banned from various social media platforms...  you.... understand the difference between what people say they were banned for versus what people are actually banned for.   Rarely does a single post or action elicit a ban, it's usually based on patterns of behavior and escalating discipline measures

Rich: I can agree with virtually all of above portion of your post. There is a certain "incompleteness" in the various entries, and although the owner of the site MIGHT have just taken the word of the people who were canceled, is not a proven fact that the owner did so.  Also, inasmuch as the descriptions are quite brief, there is a question about whether we have all the details. Probably not. I have read one analysis of the database which describes it as "not scientific" while still noting that the entries appear to check out as legitimate. However, that fact that data was collected in a non-scientific manner does NOT automatically render it false.   

Further, that is not why I started the thread.  I put it here for interested people to examine, and as a simple illustration of my point, which is...

The stifling or muffling of a citizen' ability to speak freely about political matters (so long as it does not incite violence or otherwise break the law) should be sacrosanct.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: I can agree with virtually all of above portion of your post. There is a certain "incompleteness" in the various entries, and although the owner of the site MIGHT have just taken the word of the people who were canceled, is not a proven fact that the owner did so.  Also, inasmuch as the descriptions are quite brief, there is a question about whether we have all the details. Probably not. I have read one analysis of the database which describes it as "not scientific" while still noting that the entries appear to check out as legitimate. However, that fact that data was collected in a non-scientific manner does NOT automatically render it false.   

Further, that is not why I started the thread.  I put it here for interested people to examine, and as a simple illustration of my point, which is...

The stifling or muffling of a citizen' ability to speak freely about political matters (so long as it does not incite violence or otherwise break the law) should be sacrosanct.

Bob

Bob,

You have repeatedly challenged me to prove data false.  That is not how we work in the world of science.   In science, we ONLY accept data when it is proven correct, true, or accurate.   The burden is to prove the validity of the data, not for the observer to disprove.    Anonymous website, with brief descriptions, and zero verification is utterly useless data.    Of course when you are working on pushing an ideological false narrative the quality of data used to support it, generally isn't subject to vetting as long as it's useful to the cause

[squibber]

I got into a heated political discussion on Facebook with a conservative friend. I consider myself moderately liberal.

It

[Bob In PA]

I guess what I want to say is it

[MightyGiants]

I got into a heated political discussion on Facebook with a conservative friend. I consider myself moderately liberal.

It

[katkavage]

I got into a heated political discussion on Facebook with a conservative friend. I consider myself moderately liberal.

It

[squibber]

Squibber,

I am always mindful of the point raised that people like your friend didn't get to the point they are at with careful unbiased studying of the facts and then forming logical conclusions.   As such presenting them with fats and showing the sort of conclusions you would draw from them simply isn't going to work.    The right-wing propaganda machine achieves much through emotional manipulation and careful use of logical biases.   If you want to reach your friend on an issue you need to appeal to them on an emotional visceral level, not with logic, reason, and cold hard facts.

That said, it might be best to simply avoid the topic, that is what I do with my father who is a tea party conservative/Republican.    I remember visiting him some years back and seeing his "Obama is a liberal" protest sign in his garage.   

I think there is a parallel to religious discussions I have had online. Facts and logic didn

[Bob In PA]

I think there is a parallel to religious discussions I have had online. Facts and logic didn

[NapoleonBlownapart]

As a forum moderator, you of all people would understand the difference between what people say they were banned for versus what people are actually banned for.   Rarely does a single post or action elicit a ban, it's usually based on patterns of behavior and escalating discipline measures

Huh? ask the dick face weasel mods on BBWC or Bermuda Bahamas Interactive if that's true...I took a 13 year sabbatical from posting on any Giants.com or related football boards after SB 42 and now when I have come back? I am banned or wont allow me to register.  a big middle finger to them and a huge thank you to this board for allowing me to converse.


ok - back to cancelled people!

[Bob In PA]

Is this "cancel culture" or something else? 

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/top-gop-senator-slams-party-attempt-oust-liz-cheney-cancel-culture

[MightyGiants]

Is this "cancel culture" or something else? 

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/top-gop-senator-slams-party-attempt-oust-liz-cheney-cancel-culture

Your website that claims to care about cancel culture hasn't listed Liz Cheney who is being punished for telling the truth and putting the Country before Donald Trump.  Why is that?

[Bob In PA]

Your website that claims to care about cancel culture hasn't listed Liz Cheney who is being punished for telling the truth and putting the Country before Donald Trump.  Why is that?

Rich: I'm repeating myself... anyone (including Cheney herself) can submit her situation for consideration, including you. So I guess the answer to your question is... perhaps because no one has submitted her name. 

On the other hand, the implication of your question is that this is an instance of "cancellation."  MY question above asks whether or not she is being canceled.

I see significant differences between "cancel culture" actions and Cheney's situation. The issue is whether the those differences are sufficient to justify making a distinction between Cheney's case and "cancellation."

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: I'm repeating myself... anyone (including Cheney herself) can submit her situation for consideration, including you. So I guess the answer to your question is... perhaps because no one has submitted her name. 

On the other hand, the implication of your question is that this is an instance of "cancellation."  MY question above asks whether or not she is being canceled.

I see significant differences between "cancel culture" actions and Cheney's situation. The issue is whether the those differences are sufficient to justify making a distinction between Cheney's case and "cancellation."

Bob

The secret people running that website are no doubt well aware of Cheney being canceled.   Seems the only goal of that website is to make social media a safe space to spread dangerous lies and hatred in the form of bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice.