The Hypocrisy of the CPAC Cancel Culture Theme

The Trump did nothing positive for the country. Absolutely nothing. It damaged relations with our allies and turned our country’s dialog into trash talking profession wrestling mentality. Throughout its horrible presidency, its approval rating was around 40%. Except in the Conservadome, most people are not all that keen on Republican policies and principles. Add in the Trumpian mentality, and it is mostly mental garbage for those who are undiscriminating in such things.

 

I don’t know about California, but in Oregon the Republican Party is kind of a joke. Well actually it is a joke. It can’t gain enough support to gain power so it sits in the wings spouting conspiracy theories and spinning in circles.

 

Even more troublesome still was the trump cult insurrection and trump’s attempted coup.
Funny how you went mute about the orange elephant in the room.

 

If Obama had been allowed to run again, he would have easily won, even against the Trump. Biden handily won the handily election because most Americans could clearly see the horridness of the Trump. The majority of the American people wanted a return to the Obama era, and all that it embraced.

The Trump has been tossed aside, like yesterday’s pizza box. And good riddance.

 

So a figment of your imagination is worse than things that really happened? Now that's funny, though it is in keeping with the remainder of the left's delusions concerning Trump...

 

Not if Joe-joe brain bleeder ran against him Clearly from the vote tally Joey was instrumental in getting the "What we thought was the golden boy" elected...

 

Meanwhile in Realityville half of Oregon is ready to become part of Idaho because the policies driven by Salem and Portland are insane.

 

How about we back up just a bit. This thread is about the hypocrisy of the CPAC theme "America Uncanceled". I have not made any statement that conservatives are hypocrites that share this as their number one priority. What I have said is that it is hypocrisy that CPAC has it as its top priority, while they promote a rally that is little more than the vacuous support of the identity politics wrapped around Trump, that sadly, many will privately admit that they find his identity is actually flawed, and flawed significantly.

Do we agree that CPAC is nothing more than another Trump rally?

Just going by the stage design, since they display it 3x, can we agree that the "theme" of this rally is "America Uncanceled"?



Now, since I've not stated it yet, I find some of the cancel culture to be problematic. Particularly what little I know about how this is becoming pervasive at colleges and universities and apparently is becoming a structural part of K-12 public education as well.

For example, we have a case of a former UC Berkeley Professor that then became an elementary school principal and as of this example had managed to land her next job as a high school teacher. A career path whose progression raises legitimate questions. Ingrid Seyer-Ochi received substantial backlash when she was unfortunate enough to have her op-ed accepted wherein she opined about the white privilege Bernie Sanders displayed on Jan 20th. Here's another link to it that is free of a firewall. I do think there needs to be better balance in having policies that prevent this type of behavior by educators.

But guess what Seth, there wasn't any real discussion about this at CPAC because it's just another vacuous Trump rally, this one in particular taking it up a notch on the Rush style grievance politics and whole lot of braggadocio and chest pounding. Complete with statue that has Charlton Heston (too far left these days I suspect) possibly rolling in his grave saying damn you all to hell, hahaha.





I am not a fan of how Hollywood cancels actors. I have a friend that works in that business and it is cut-throat. They cancel folks for far less than their politics, although that is often a reason as well. Cry me a river though that I'm going to view how human resources work in Hollywood as one of my top priorities. Big deal, Rosanne got canceled because she was a Trump supporter. Not the only reason, more like the final straw. There are many other cases in this business, several of which I have a gripe about just off the top of my head, but hopefully I've made my point with regard to celebrity cancel culture: its a tenuous business with incredible wealth at the top of the game - deal with what you need to do to navigate and get a gig if that's what you want in life.

Let's pause here for a moment since I expect to eventually get around to refuting your assertion that you object to my OP due to your reverence for free speech and your claim to be an independent, rather than that you are actually offended by it because you are just shy of being among the Trump devout (giving you the benefit of the doubt). Cancel culture vs free speech at work: Hollywood is a job for these people. Guess what, no one has free speech at work. It's not cancel culture that folks can't say whatever the f they want at work, is it? And, guess what, holding the office of the Presidency means even greater restrictions on speech. In your career have you often held your tongue in check while making statements while on the clock? Damn well you have as have we all. And even off the clock most folks would never make a public statement the could negatively impact their employment and its accompanying health care.

Then there is the cancel culture of monuments. I have no problem with canceling all monuments dedicated to anything related to the Confederate traitors to the United States of America. None whatsoever. Now, having said that, I am not pleased with some of the collateral damage that accompanies such support. For example, back home in Louisville there is a pretty decent public park system that was in large part founded by John B. Castleman, and for this reason there is a prominent statue of him at an intersection near Cherokee Park. John's statue is not well loved by all, probably including a lot of woke folk that never bothered to Google why that statue is there. Well, sorry Johnny, you made a bad call and fought against the USA with the traitors. Nice job with the parks, but you got to go brah.



Accompanying this aspect of cancel culture is renaming a decent amount of US military installations. A bit absurd, but given the recent admission that the F-35 program is basically a bust, what's $50M or even $500M to the DoD. Not a priority complaint of a conservative agenda that doesn't first talk about the f'g F-35 disaster, not to mention the looming failure of the Ford class carrier or fundamental military preparedness. Or the basis for redeploying US forces in Europe from Germany to Belgium and Poland. But by all means, continue with the line about conservative priorities about freedom of speech and cancel culture.

So, now that I've established what I believe to be a bit of common ground with you about my concerns with cancel culture that we likely have in common, more or less, let me switch over to hard power cancel culture, as all of these previous examples have been soft power cancel culture issues.

Trump is the epitome of hard power cancel culture. Mitch is too, but I'm going to try to stick to CPAC rather than include all of Trump's sycophants. CPAC has been pwned by hard power cancel culture. Your mention previously of "my way or the highway" is exceedingly unfortunate in this debate given that that is the exact description of Trump and his presence at CPAC.

But you haven't really focused on CPAC, let's be honest. You've not focused on the hypocrisy, let's be honest. Is it a conservative organization? Does it represent your top priorities? It seems to me that it does, since you've responded to this thread with grievances about freedom of speech that you assert conservatives support and liberals deny, I have to read this as that you do agree with the importance of CPAC's ostensible "theme". Further, I have to question your independence of thought that you would emphasize the importance of freedom of speech with respect to this thread and CPAC here less than two months after Trump's freedom of speech led to the spectacular debacle at our Capitol on Jan 6th.

But you defend Tump's right to say what he did. Will you next time support the next attempt when it's backed by the Pentagon?

We've had a bit of this dance before, here's a link, it took me a bit to find it,
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...snookered-and-by-whom.582555/#post-1072308804

 

Part II due to App limits on character count...

***
Regarding your statements above.

1)
Trump's election loss is not his punishment for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, a violation of 18 USC 2385: 20 Years Brah, LOCK HIM UP.

You wrote,

But, back in this other thread, you wrote

Contrary to Ted Cruz shouting FREEDOM!, we have laws against sedition.

Please Seth, establish some semblance of a consistent conservative position free of Trumpism.

2)
You agree that Trump lost the election, Holy sweet f all, what do you want, a ribbon for that?

3)
There are many reports that have been published that establish that Russia preferred Trump over Clinton and took measures to support such an outcome. Let's be honest? Really? Further, the Mueller investigation was prevented from exploring the Deutsch Bank records. Additionally, how is it that Trump is the only US President to have shattered our alliances with NATO? Announced our withdrawal from Germany? Holy f. And folks were concerned about HRC.

Ah, the whatabout. Sure, Holder and Lynch. Just as bad as Sessions and Barr, but smarter about it? There just isn't any end to the twisting and turning from Trump's apologists. Even assuming that they did operate as highly partisan as Sessions and Barr, and placed their thumbs on the FBI and special prosecutions, etc., you freaking admit then that Obama appointed smarter folks to the position than Trump? Fail....

4)
Finally you return to topic. I pretty much agree with your assessment about CPAC, however, it's not exactly shining through in your posts on this thread.

5)
In addition to the portion of this response that I've covered above, if you are independent then why is it good news that Ds are, according to you, overstepping? Sounds like you're pleased to see failure in yet another administration. What part of your take on this I wonder may have been lost in PF translation - giving you the benefit of the doubt.

6)
I support several of Trump's actions as President. I support taking out Soleimani. I support leaving the Paris Climate Accord. I support almost all things Oil and Gas, but I think that maybe we don't really need to have rescinded the protected status of Big Ears or whatever it's called. I also support wind and solar. I think solar is the way to go and that the whole planet should come together to build a giant equatorial sun belt based grid to deliver free power to the entire planet. It would be epic. I vote myself to be the project manager.

Sadly, I do not support frivolous f wits like the Trumps and have to defer some of my personal preferences in favor of having some semblance of competency in the Oval. Also, sadly, Biden was the only other option and I suppose in hindsight the only one of the D field I'd now have preferred would probably be Booker, well, aside from maybe Sanders who is also a bit too old, but there's at least one thread about setting an age limit on federal office.

7)
Interesting. Who did you vote for in November in 2020 for the President? I voted for Biden. There was no other choice for me given that I view Trump as a substantial threat to the very structure of our country.

Apologies Seth if I've used one of your posts to flesh out a bunch of thoughts that are to some extent possibly not related to your intent with your posts. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

I don't think you understand what Cancel Culture is.

 

Why don't you tell us?

 

Hear! hear!

 

Liberal Democrat Cancel Culture is to eliminate anything resembling the Constitutional Republic by shaming the very foundation of our Country. Free Speech and Freedom of Religion are the biggest attacks by the cancel culture people. CPAC speakers who attacked Romney and Chenny weren't attempting to silence them. They were invited but didn't want to come because they know they are a part of canceling conservativism. Trump called them out along with a few other spineless Republicans. But, he didn't demand their removal from Twitter or any other media as well. Not like Twitter did with Trump.

 

The Foundation of the United States included a substantial body of laws firmly establishing the institution of racial slavery, we shouldn't regard that as shameful?

I always thought cancel culture was the practice of not doing business with people whose viewpoints, attitudes, and beliefs I personally despise. Silly me. Seems I should keep on throwing money at people who advocate that me and mine should be strongly repressed if not worse.

 

Hell, that's what I see Republicans doing in the National Congress. If it weren't for crazy these people wouldn't be able to think at all.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. Learn it.

Cancel culture is a phrase that has been appropriated from talking heads like Rush and Maher and Bill Burr for use at the Trump CPAC rally to divert attention from the fact that Trump committed sedition against the government and was not protected "free speech".

As I pointed out previously in this thread, there is no such thing as freedom of speech at work, and most of us spend about half our time when not sleeping at work. And when you're the President you're at work all the time. It's really a bit of a jail sentence. Trump was obligated by that position to concede the election and instead he violated 18 USC 2385 among other crimes such as his phone call to Raffensberger. If the firing of SecDef Esper had been successful and his attempted coup had been backed by the Pentagon we would now be living in a whole new world. One that many who support Trump would favor. And yet here we have CPAC conducting another Trump rally talking trash about freedom while hosting the man that attempted to overthrow the government of the United States as its keynote speaker.

Part of the very foundation of the country included effectively the genocide of the entire indigenous population East of the Mississippi river. Part of the very foundation of the country was slavery. Slavery ffs. Slaves accounted for 39% of the population of the 11 Confederate states. Slaveholders in 1860 accounted for 1/5 of white males aged 20 to 89 in the Confederate states. This is not the kind of stuff the current CPAC crowd cares to even acknowledge. It is not the sort of stuff that CPAC has probably ever cared to acknowledge, certainly it has never made it an agenda item, has it?

Acknowledge glaring flaws associated with the myth of the perfect foundation of the United States doesn't mean eliminating anything resembling the Constitutional Republic. However, trying to overthrow the election in the Constitutional Republic does mean eliminating it.

***
Not much reason to engage with you when you display such blatant partisan spin of CPAC and what is going on with regard to Romney and Cheney. Neither were invited and the whole point of the new party of Trump is 100% to silence anyone that would dissent with him. Trump is the one cancelling conservatism, not Mitt, not Liz. Spineless you call the few Rs that retain any semblance of principles against Trumpism. Good luck with Trump over the next four years.

Trump didn't demand their removal from Twitter? Not like Twitter did with Trump? You know what? Thanks for reminding me. I had already forgotten that FB and TWTR had canceled his accounts. Wow! Nice. I cannot believe I missed that that is what this is all about. CPAC - What a bunch of snowflake crybabies, here, need a tissue? Trump should have been removed from TWTR on 1/20/17 by law. He might be President today if that had happened and he had grown the f up and acted as the President for the whole country from 2017 until 2020 as has been the tradition.

 

Marginalization.

For future reference, one-liners like that, with no substance such as "cancel culture is ... " in this case. You criticize my opinion, but you don't seem to want to show me yours.

 

A lot to unwrap there. (I couldn't quote it all because the site wouldn't let me.)

Grey Matter, I voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the primaries and for Trump in the general. There were numerous reasons why I couldn't vote for Biden, but they boil down to a lack of faith in him. I dislike the direction of the Democratic party, and I expect Biden to be little more than a rubber stamp for them. True leadership is tough. It is not always popular, even with your own. I haven't seen that kind of leadership with Biden, nor do I expect to.

My opinion is that Trump did not technically incite a riot under criminal laws, but he lost my support to further serve as President after the January 6th riot at the Capitol. If he had had any substantial time left on his term, I would have supported his removal, allowing Pence to serve out his term.

All of the familiar personal traits - being un-presidential, the tweets, the public criticism of his cabinet members and allies, his inability not to overreact to every criticism, his dumb and sometimes offensive statements, his exaggerations, etc, etc - I disliked, but I agreed with him on national policy on most things. Not all, but most. I sincerely believe that national policy outweighs whether I like the guy's personality, for it is national policy that effects my children and grandchildren. I do not adhere to Trump, the Republicans, or the Democrats. I am an adherent to policy positions. I am also an adherent to our Constitution and to our our Country.

If it sounds like I was parroting the CPAC "cancel culture" theme, it is because I mostly hate the cancel culture. I don't really mind removing statues of Confederate generals, but in my area, they are "cancelling" Washington and Jefferson and even Lincoln. Hell, Dr Suess books are being cancelled! I am sick of this! Books? Liberals want to ban books? Well, hell ... Maybe we ought to collect them all and burn them in a gigantic pile ... just like Hitler's Brown Shirts did! How about conservatives giving talks at universities? How many of them have been banned? And I can't help but think of the committed liberal professor at Evergreen College (Olympia, WA) who was fired for not going along with a "no whites" day at the college where he was a tenured professor.

And talk about hypocrisy! When a conservative activist is assaulted, he's assaulted by a "protester". When a conservative assaults someone or otherwise breaks the law, he's a "domestic terrorist." And when protesters destroy property, loot, commit arson, intimidate, and assault, injure police officers, they are "mostly peaceful protesters", but if conservatives break the law, they are insurrectionists or terrorists. When a Democratic campaign buys a completely phony "dossier" that sparks a two-year "investigation", with the underlying intent to cancel an election, that's legitimate. But if Trump questions the outcome of an election, it isn't legitimate. When Biden brags that he withheld foreign aid from a country until it fired a prosecutor, that's OK. But when Trump implies he will withhold foreign aid for an investigation, it isn't OK - it's impeachable. And there is no outcry when a liberal member of Congress incites people to "create a crowd" wherever they (conservatives or Republicans) are and to "push back on them", but that is not incitement to violence. When a conservative Supreme Court nominee is accused of sexual assault with no corroboration whatsoever, she is believed unanimously by Democrats, but when Biden is accused of committing a digital rape on a young aide, with corroboration, his denial is deemed to be acceptable. It is unacceptable to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, but it is perfectly acceptable to build a wall, with barbed wire on top, backed up by thousands of National Guard soldiers, around the Capitol. When Bush's war in Iraq wasn't going well, Democrats declared that the war was lost and tried to deny funding for it. Obama even ran for president on a central theme that the Iraq war was wrong, and he eventually pulled out our forces. And yet when Trump planned to pull our forces out of Syria, liberals wailed in opposition - "betraying our allies", they said. Democrats said the Trump tax cuts were only to benefit the rich. Where is their legislation raising taxes on rich, like Nancy ($250 million) Pelosi?

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, isn't there?

You asked, "In addition to the portion of this response that I've covered above, if you are independent then why is it good news that Ds are, according to you, overstepping?"

Because I don't like their agenda, and I hope they lose in 2022 and 2024.

But just so you know, I don't like "Establishment" Republicans very much either. I don't care for either party's elites. I don't care for their double-talk, their hypocrisy, their wars (that my son fought in and sacrificed in), and their disconnect from ordinary Americans. Truthfully, I find the Republicans to be less odious than the Democrats except when they are sending our valiant and courageous young people off to stupid, useless wars.

I haven't covered everything in your response to me. I respect the fact that you put a lot of effort and time into it. If I have skipped things you wanted answers to (I probably have), then hit me up. I won't dodge anything.

Seth

 

I think the narrative that Trump did nothing positive for the country is just false on its face. This is opinion, not fact, and we all have our differing opinions.

I thought that supporting business, energy independence, no new wars, trade equity, peace overtures with N. Korea, suppression of illegal immigration, making European countries support their own defense, minority employment, and his support for respect for Country, its anthem and flag, were all good for the country.

If you don't agree with those things, that's your right as an American.

Seth

 

The thing is, regarding your example, society has always judged people who are in the spotlight. In the old days, stars would keep their dirty laundry hidden. Believe me, if someone as relatively recent as Rock Hudson had, in his prime, come out as being gay, he would have had his career, "cancelled."

Times have changed. Being gay doesn't carry as much of a stigma anymore; being racist (or perceived to be) though, now carries a much greater stigma, at least nationally, if not equally in all localities. Not that I'm any kind of Disney supporter, but they seem to have merely made a business decision: they would lose more business by holding on to someone who was getting so much negative publicity because of her repeatedly choosing to be indiscrete in exercising her right to free speech, than the business they might lose for canning her.

Just because we have a right to free speech, does NOT mean we have a right to go unjudged for the things we say, or do. It also does not mean, just because it's our right to say something, that there may not be negative consequences for doing so (only that the government is not supposed to punish you for it). But even there, the impression of others can have the force of a guillotine: as, for example, when FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed from working on Mueller's investigation because of publicity over some anti-Trump emails between himself & FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. (As a side note, I just saw that he was fired by the FBI Director in 2018, & filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Bureau, for back wages & reinstatement, in 2019).

I'm not saying that these cases are analogous: it was just an example with which I thought you would be familiar. Actually, I'd guess that his would be a stronger legal case than Carano's, because of the importance of one's public image in the Entertainment Industry, so I would assume there might be some language in her contract relating to that (Strzok's emails had been private).

But the point is that, people are gonna judge; and if those people decide to take action based on that judging-- what can you do? They certainly have the RIGHT to boycott, as much as those their boycotts are directed against have the right to say the things which lead to the boycotts. It's just reality, and making choices. I think that is what the OP is pointing out: that those Republicans who are often the most vocal critics of cancel culture, are likewise prone to judge people for things they absolutely have a right to do-- like voting to impeach Trump-- but nevertheless can try to punish those of whose words or actions they don't approve. The only difference, when Republicans vote to throw Jason Amash out of their Party, they think of it as their right to do so; I'm sure anyone who complained to Disney about Carano, felt that was their right, too.

 

I don't know how much it has to do with cancel culture or CPAC (not that I'm anyone to judge anyone else-- I've been posting extensively on Lincoln's large role in assuring the Southern Secession would lead to war, in a thread about Democratic interest in regulating conspiracy theories in, "News," programs) but I found what you posted here to seem a rare combination in an individual: against the Paris Climate Accord, & for full exploitation of, "almost all things Oil & Gas (your caps)" but, nevertheless a big fan of wind and, especially, solar energy--

I need MORE POWER (,Mr. Scott)!!!

Care to elaborate? You don't feel the environment can be made any worse by our ignoring the looming crisis (or that any of our efforts can have a positive impact?)


BTW, Trump's effort to open up drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, on its northern shore, was a massive fail. They'd expected to raise $1.8 BILLION, for drilling rights, and at the auction (in January, I think) the oil & gas companies all begged off, feeling it wasn't worth the long-term investment. In fact, only half the land available even got bids, from real estate developers, putting this previously protected, pristine coastal land at risk from development, for less than 1% of what had been the projected government windfall ($14 Million). If you were at all interested.

 

Let me see, if you can't see the difference between wokesters demanding that people be fired for saying things they don't like and Republican voters refusing to vote for people that have made it clear they don't share their views I'm not sure I can explain it in a way you could comprehend.

 

Both sides are notorious for believing that people who say things they don't like should not be supported by businesses they patronize

I am simply saying that I don't deal with people who support viewpoints and ideologies I despise. The owner of Home Depot is a big Trump supporter as is Mike Lindell of My Pillow, therefore I go out of my way not to deal with them. Do you believe I should be coerced to give them my business or what?

 

Isn't Neera Tanden being cancelled?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/22/biden-nominations-gop-manchin-tanden-471080

 

I'll bet. It makes the left look pretty bad.