Public Dissent

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Public Dissent

Post #1

Post by WebersHome »

.
I disapprove of what you say,
But I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The Life Of Voltaire / Evelyn Beatrice Hall

The above was at one time a popular motto in the USA; but it's rapidly losing ground to what's coming to be known as a "cancel culture" wherein opposing voices are suppressed in broadcast media, print media, digital media, and social media; thus insuring that the public is influenced by only one side of the coin.

I believe it is essential to the preservation of a free political/commercial economy that every point of view, and every opinion, be afforded the right to be heard; and each individual decide for his/her own self what's true and what's not, rather than leave it up to truth police and/or Machiavellian special interests to decide for us like they do in North Korea.
_

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 942 times

Re: Public Dissent

Post #2

Post by Miles »

WebersHome wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:55 am .
I disapprove of what you say,
But I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The Life Of Voltaire / Evelyn Beatrice Hall

The above was at one time a popular motto in the USA;

But never without qualifications.


Image



So as more such issues arise more limits are put into place. All of which really isn't germane because the cancel culture is something quite different.


The cancel culture


"American public opinion

A poll of American registered voters conducted by Morning Consult in July 2020 showed that cancel culture, defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive," was common: 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive, 8% having engaged in this often. Behavior differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18 to 34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on. Attitude towards the practice was mixed, with 44% of respondents saying they disapproved of cancel culture, 32% who approved, and 24% who did not know or had no opinion. Furthermore, 46% believed cancel culture had gone too far, with only 10% thinking it had not gone far enough. However, a majority (53%) believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, especially those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people.

Criticism

Some journalists question the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon. Connor Garel, writing for Vice, states that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled."

Historian C. J. Coventry argues that the term has been incorrectly applied, and that it more accurately reflects the propensity of people to hide historical instances of injustice:


While I agree that the line between debate and suppression is one that occasionally gets crossed by the so-called left wing, it is almost invariably true that the real cancel culture is perpetrated by those who have embraced the term. If you look through Australian history, as well as European and American history, you will find countless examples of people speaking out against injustice and being persecuted in return. I can think of a number of people in our own time who are being persecuted by supposedly democratic governments for revealing uncomfortable information

Another historian, David Olusoga, similarly argued:


The great myth about cancel culture, however, is that it exists only on the left. For the past 40 years, rightwing newspapers have ceaselessly fought to delegitimise and ultimately cancel our national broadcaster [the BBC], motivated by financial as well as political ambitions.


Pam Palmater writes in Maclean's magazine that cancel culture differs from accountability in her article about the public backlash surrounding Canadian politicians who vacationed during COVID-19, despite pandemic rules not to.

Source: Wikipedia









.

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Public Dissent

Post #3

Post by WebersHome »

.
Titus 1:10-11 . .There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, etc.

According to the entirety of Titus 1:5-16, "stopping mouths" consists of sensible, well informed rebuttals rather than censoring and/or suppression.

Also; the task is not assigned to rank and file pew warmers, rather, to the senior members of your church known to be competent enough with the Bible to do a good job of refuting error; and they are not allowed to become militant in this endeavor, but must do so in a civil manner.


Titus 1:7-8 . . Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless-- not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not violent . . . rather; he must be hospitable, self controlled, and disciplined.

NOTE: In our day, "they of the circumcision" (a.k.a. Jews) are not as serious a threat to Christianity that they were back in Paul's time. In our day, it's missionaries like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that are going about the business of subverting whole households. If your church offers special classes for defending your beliefs against those people, I strongly suggest taking it.
_

Post Reply