I agree with what you're saying. One does wonder why someone would post something offensive, but there is also something to be said for evidential support.

There was no context to that cartoon, however, that needed to be known to understand its intent. It stated pretty clearly the view that the world as we know it had been destroyed because we were asking people which pronouns they prefer. It suggested that this kind of woke behavior was responsible for the decline of the entire planet, so that the aliens didn't even need to bother taking us out; we'd already done it ourselves. This isn't a blank wall. It's a board where context could have been provided rather easily. If one were to suggest that the implication of the cartoon or the cartoon itself was an example of a sentiment the poster found to be in error, one would expect the poster to have been quick to distance themselves from the content. Instead, the poster began posting at length about cancel culture, stated there was another cartoon a couple days earlier, which he failed to reference, and has yet to suggest he understands what was offensive about it.

Someone spraypainting or posting, Your Woke Pronouns are Ridiculous needs no context. See what I did there? I used an example, and then made it clear that I was using it as an example that did not actually match my opinion. Now you clearly know my position and you can argue all you want that what I'm saying is wrong if you like.

The cartoon poster in question STILL hasn't expressed that he disagrees with the cartoon, but instead has spoken rather at length on "cancel culture," which was completely unrelated to the cartoon! At least, that was the case when I stopped reading.

I have an easier example. Pretend that you are a trans person, and you are reading this board and that you clicked on that cartoon. Now watch their pretend face, and you know everything you need to know about it. It takes a special kind of arrogance to act butthurt that someone in that position is offended.

The testimony from the four police officers is very difficult to listen to. I'm so thankful that they and their fellow officers succeeded in protecting the folks inside the Capitol from the terrorists who tried to overturn the election.

I was listening to it in the car and burst into tears after the African American officer talked about his experience.

Tough to watch.

It's also been tough to listen to politicians who were there soft peddle Jan 6 .

Rep Andrew Cylde for one, who was even was forced to man a barricade against the insurectionists:


He said his statement was taken out of context and believed he addressed the modest commotion:

'This is the truth. There was an undisciplined mob, there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism,'" Clyde said.

That hardly says it at all. Does it?

Is that what you all were thinking as you watched that day? What did your eyes tell you?

“When what you hear and what you see don't match, trust your eyes.”

― Dale Renton

Stating clearly: I disavow the opinion that you think is expressed by the cartoon I posted a link to.

.

.

Why do I think that I will never be able to write the right words, even if you were to give me the script? Why do I think there is no forgiveness? That there never will be forgiveness? That if someone uses those or similar sentiments that they will be pounded by most of the rest of the people in this board?

.

.

The theme of the three cartoons, the one I posted and two that were each two days before and after, had a common theme of cancelling people. I'm sorry that you don't see that as the theme. I still think that cancelling is extremely rare as the correct answer for the things that people are getting cancelled for.

Before anyone imputes my opinion: The people were gathered to peacefully protest.

Those who crossed the barriers, whether they entered the Capitol building or nor, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as I have stated before.

Most of the people remained on the correct side of the barriers and remained peaceful. These people should not be co-indicted with those who crossed the barriers.

I agree that the people who were there to peacefully protest (and there were quite a few of those folks) shouldn't be prosecuted. The thousands of terrorists who deliberately breached the barriers in an attempt to subvert the results of our presidential election, on the other hand, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I think perhaps that you did not understand the cartoon. It did not reference cancel culture at all; it was saying that a society that respects gender diversity, that allows individuals to choose their own pronouns to define themselves, has already destroyed itself.

I also think that far-right-wing media has you trained to see & fear cancel culture everywhere.

If I unpacked this clear statement correctly: You do not support the opinion of Wry Me regarding her interpretation of the meaning of the cartoon.

The cartoon itself in no way shape or form addresses cancel culture. If the rest of us missed something here please help us to understand the context you apparently see differently from the cartoon.


Buzzwords are often a too small blanket that when pulled to cover one spot leaves lots of new places uncovered.


Sorry, I missed the contrition while reading through your defending what you posted. If forgiveness is what you are looking for, you have it from me if that means anything to you.

If that is the case then, what do you believe incited the peaceful folks to riot and ultimately breech the Capitol building? Then again aren't people responsible for their own actions?


And they are not being co-indicted. Whether intentional or not, statements such as that create, address, and then rail against a situation that doesn't exist. Common tactic on Fox News. Considering this one unintentional.

Looks like there are ~543 charged so far and 300 more set to be charged as they are identified.

Capitol breach cases

I went through the complete list of those charged by the Justice Department and rest assured no one who attended the protest and stayed out of the capitol grounds has been charged. This is not a thing. I found two cases total that appear to charge someone with what could be called simple trespass as they had no disorderly conduct or violent entry charges associated with their actions on Jan 6.

Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority

Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority


You have indeed stated that more than once!

Then you are deliberately working to misunderstand. I do not know how to restate it more clearly that Wry Me's interpretation is not what I mean/meant; that Wry Me's interpretation is not even close to what I mean/meant. Did you not read the story that I related, twice? Did you not understand it?

I had the context of the cartoon two days prior. I should have referred to that one as well. Considering the context of what was two days after, Scott Adams is working on a theme, at least for these three strips.

Out of this context I can see how Wry Me, and others, came to the conclusion that they did. Now that I have provided context, multiple times, there is no way to perceive it but deliberate, purposeful misunderstanding of what I have written.


Did disavowal fly over your head? By "disavow" I mean that the interpretation that Wry Me proposed is not an opinion that I hold.


Then I accept it. Thanks.

I also forgive you, and all the others.

Sorry, I should have said "virtually co-indicted". There are those who are grouping the thousands who remained on the proper side of the barriers along with the hundreds who crossed the barriers.

And there are those on both sides of the barriers who have detestable views. However, while they remained peacefully on the proper side of the barrier those (even with detestable views) should not be virtually co-indicted along with those who crossed the barriers.

Actually, most of my views on cancel culture are from Stossel. And certainly some from the main stream media.

Some synonyms of what I mean by "disavow": repudiate, disown, reject as untrue or unjust (I know, more than one word so not technically a synonym).

You do seem to back-peddle quite frequently on everything political. Like you're trying to express detestable views without being detestable.

I don't really have any sympathy for any of the people participating in the "stop the steal" rally--regardless of which side of the barriers they stayed on. The election, by all measures, was not stolen. It's like protesting that the earth is flat. It's just stupid. It's fine if they don't like the results--plenty of people protested against Trump when he was elected (remember the "not my president" slogan?), but they didn't make up election-fraud claims and storm the Capitol.

Even if the idiots were smart enough not to enter the Capitol, they still pushed the lies and helped incite the storming. Trump didn't enter the Capitol, but he was the one person most directly responsible for the attack as far as I'm concerned. He pushed the lies, gathered his troops, and sent them off to the Capitol to keep himself in power. Just cause he didn't enter the Capitol doesn't make him innocent.

I wouldn't go so far as to start arresting all of the law-abiding protesters and throwing them in jail--but I'm certainly not going to feel bad for them either for being "virtually co-indicted." Seems the least that they deserve. I'll "virtually co-indict" anyone who promotes overthrowing the government regardless of whether they directly participated in the attempt or not.

-- Ryan

As I have stated before, Biden is my President.

Even if (not when) the election were (note the subjunctive denoting a contra-factual) to be judged totally invalid, at this time there is no Constitutional provision for changing the outcome. There is not likely ever to be so, fortunately.

Disavow: deny any responsibility or support for.
Contrition: the state of feeling remorseful and penitent

Are you confused with the difference between disavow and contrition? The first would not and the other would fit in with talk about forgiveness.

You must not have noticed my direct and intentional use of the definition of disavow in my reply.

Have a nice day

And this is why I provided some synonyms in a reply to my own message, a message written before your reply.

What word would you suggest that I use? Anything I have come up with has been repeatedly and purposefully interpreted as repudiating Wry Me when I'm trying to convey that I disagree with the interpretation to what I meant. This statement will, of course, also be intentionally interpreted to mean the opposite of what I actually mean.

Let me state feeling remorseful and penitent.

Is it true, as was stated in the video I posted from a few days ago "Leaving the Left" (3:18), speaking of those on the left, "They believe that if you disagree with them you're evil"?

Fair enough. I stopped reading at some point.

Bill Maher (another right-wing hack) speaking on cancelling and The Woke Olympics.

If you don't get it, the parenthesized phrase is sarcasm meaning he is not that.

My favorite right wing talk show host talks cancel culture again.

And because those in this group seem to not treat anything I say (write) not explicitly labeled as not literal as me speaking literally, I am using sarcasm again because someone said I get my ideas about cancel culture from right wing talk show hosts.

https://www.atlasquest.com/boards/read.php?startId=999076

Was this was one of your posts?

That was one of my posts. That may have been the first one I posted here about cancel culture.

My posting of that has been discussed to death, in the thread that you posted. I posted it because of what he said, not who he is. He is (from what I have since read) someone on the alt-right. I do not support those views, the alt-right views attributed to him. (I'm using "attributed" because I haven't seen those views expressed by him because this video is the only one of his that I have seen, and I haven't read anything else from him, only about him.)

Anyway, Stossel and Maher have been the majority of where I have been watching about cancel culture. I have posted a few videos here from them about this topic. The reason I referred to Maher twice recently as being on the right is because of a comment in another long thread that I started where someone referred to me getting most of my views on cancel culture from the right.

Is allusion another abstract literary device that I am going to have to start flagging here?

Regarding the Jordan Petersons and the Stefan Molyneuxs of this world, perhaps you should better vet the people you choose to speak for you. Do you still maintain using these bigoted right wingers to make cases for you are mere happenstance? Do you distance yourself from all their positions? You must have felt aligned with Stefan Molyneux's thinking or why else would you bother to post it.

Libertarians are not found on the opposite end of the spectrum from alt right speakers and supporters. One might expect sarcastic or ironic devises might indeed refer to the polar opposites and not fall confusingly somewhere in between.

Have a nice day!

I was the one who said that. Let me rephrase. Your favorite talk show hosts have jobs that depend on getting views, clicks, other media attention.... so they use the controversial trending topics of the day to rile up their audiences.

NPR had this article last month about how the debate over cancel culture has its roots in the culture war over political correctness. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014744289/cancel-culture-debate-has-early-90s-roots-political-correctness No surprise that Bill Maher, who literally got famous by positioning himself as politically incorrect, would rail against cancel culture too.

My original point was that cancel culture isn't nearly as prevalent as these talk show hosts are leading you to believe. Most of the buzz about this Matt Damon thing isn't from "let's cancel Matt Damon!" but from "oh no, the liberals wants us to cancel Matt Damon, they get offended by everything." Bill Maher and John Stossel and others get paychecks because they create that buzz.

Yawn.

Everybody who has functioning neurons know that "conservatives" invented and project 'cancel culture'.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/republicans-cancel-culture-kaepernick/

Taking a knee (fire the b*st*rds, 'cos murrika).

Sorry about your goodies....

And I stated why I used that comparison. As is

I have written here before that I prefer the two dimensional graphing of political positions presented by the libertarians. I just searched for it but couldn't find it. Explaining in brief: There is the usual left, center and right. The second dimension is authoritarianism, with up being less control and down being more, somewhat like this:

        ___________
      /            \
     /  Libertarian \
    / \            / \
   /   \          /   \
  /     +--------+     \
 /      |        |      \
< Left  | Center | Right >
 \      |        |      /
  \     +--------+     /
   \   /          \   /
    \ /            \ /
     \ Authoritarian/
      \            /
       \----------/

Their graph was pointed at the top and the bottom, but I didn't want to take up that much vertical space to complete the point.

Here is a video of Penn Jillette on libertarianism that I watched about a week ago. I certainly don't agree with Penn on a lot of views, but he does make a compelling case about libertarianism. This is why I'm on the line between Right (Conservative) and Libertarian.

John Stossel, Dave Rubin and Penn Jillette all changed their political opinions dramatically. Stossel and Jillette describe themselves as libertarian, while Rubin calls himself a classical liberal. I have watched enough of Bill Maher to be pretty confident that he is on the line between Left and Libertarian.

I am watching a lot of Stossel and Maher lately. They are both making compelling cases.

Check out the responses I received when I have rephrased.

I won't be surprised that those same people will not treat this rephrasing the same way. Are you going to prove me right by not giving the same type of responses?


I found out about Bill Maher because of his previous show "Politically Incorrect", where this show was literally cancelled because of a comment he made on the show. I was turned onto the show by one of my liberal (left) friends. The show was on late at night (2:00 or 3:00 am) around here, so I recorded it to watch it at a reasonable hour.

His current show "Real Time with Bill Maher" while a different show has very much the same tone. He has had Penn Jillette on his show. I'm watching it now so I haven't pre-viewed it, but with Penn Jillette I expect no surprises.

And I am concerned that this "cancel culture" will grow. Though I hope that I am wrong about it growing. Bring this up in 10 years and we'll see where "cancel culture" is then.

Now that I have watched it, I can tell you that there were no real surprises.

You (the great majority of people commenting in this group) will like what he (and Glenn Beck) had to say about Trump. Though Glenn Beck has since changed his mind, not as much as you would think but more than I would think (from his severe opposition to Donald Trump before the election).

The phrase that most struck me was, "I've said a million times, if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, things just keep getting more evil." He did clarify this statement shortly thereafter that this doesn't apply short term, but does apply long term. And then came his strongest comment on Donald Trump.

And, again, he makes a very compelling case for libertarianism later in the clip.