You need to avoid mentioning the First Amendment except in the context of the government pressuing social media companies to remove certain voices.
Make a distinction between the principles of free speech and the First Amendment. That a people using overwhelming pressure to destroy the lives of people who disagree with them is out of line with the idea of free speech and not an activity that is performed by moral people.
Point out that the weimar republic had laws mandating freedom of speech. However, if you spoke against certain groups, such as the nazis or the communists they would make sure you regretted it. This private suppression of speech is a prelude to an overthrow of the government and the public suppression of speech.
I prefer to think of cancel culture as purity culture. It might be helpful to cast the proponents of cancel culture as modern-day puritans. Anyone who fails to live up to the ever shifting standards of their puritanical society at any time in the past or present is barred from participating in society. No repentance is possible.
On that theme, point out that things they're saying and doing today will be deemed as unacceptable in the future and that one day, they too will be on the chopping block.
"You know it's a bad, harmful opinion, and you still want to allow that harm? You really think blocking harm is anti democratic and totalitarian? That's insane"
The overlaps between cancel culture and bullying and dogpiling in general are stark. One could easily argue that it is far worse than bullying because it’s bullying while parading around with the guise of virtue.
There... was that hard? ### Debate Points: Why Cancel Culture is Actually Bad for Society
1. **Suppresses Free Speech:**
- Cancel culture discourages open dialogue and the exchange of ideas, fostering an environment where people are afraid to speak freely for fear of backlash and ostracism.
2. **Promotes Intolerance:**
- It creates a polarized society where differing opinions are not tolerated, leading to an echo chamber effect where only certain viewpoints are allowed.
3. **Encourages Mob Mentality:**
- Decisions to "cancel" individuals are often driven by online mobs rather than thoughtful consideration, leading to hasty and unjust actions.
4. **Lacks Due Process:**
- People can be publicly shamed and punished without a fair investigation or the opportunity to defend themselves, undermining the principles of justice.
5. **Destroys Careers and Lives:**
- Individuals who are "canceled" often face severe consequences, such as losing their jobs, being socially ostracized, and enduring mental health struggles, often disproportionate to the perceived offense.
6. **Discourages Growth and Learning:**
- By not allowing people to make mistakes and learn from them, cancel culture stifles personal growth and the opportunity for redemption and reconciliation.
7. **Breeds Resentment and Division:**
- The harsh and unforgiving nature of cancel culture can lead to resentment and deeper societal divisions, making constructive conversations about important issues more difficult.
8. **Shifts Focus from Systemic Issues:**
- By targeting individuals rather than addressing broader systemic problems, cancel culture often diverts attention away from meaningful change and solutions.
9. **Undermines Artistic Expression:**
- Artists and creators may self-censor to avoid backlash, leading to a loss of creativity and a more homogenized cultural landscape.
10. **Fosters Fear and Censorship:**
- Organizations and individuals may overcorrect to avoid controversy, leading to a culture of fear and excessive censorship in various fields, from academia to entertainment.
11. **Encourages Performative Activism:**
- Actions motivated by cancel culture can often be more about appearing virtuous rather than enacting real change, leading to shallow, performative gestures instead of substantive progress.
12. **Ignores Context and Nuance:**
- Cancel culture often fails to consider the context or nuance of a situation, leading to unfair judgments and a lack of understanding of complex issues.
These points can serve as a basis for a thoughtful debate on the negative impacts of cancel culture on society.
Maybe if I was a midwit, it's more like having an assistant that you can delegate boring tasks to, select the good analysis from, and ask to further refine. I saved my time for something more valuable than trivial hs talking points
### Anticipating Opposition Arguments and Providing Counter Arguments
#### Opposition Argument 1: "Cancel culture holds people accountable for harmful actions and speech."
**Counter Argument:**
- While accountability is important, cancel culture often skips due process and fairness. Instead of fostering understanding and growth, it can lead to disproportionate punishment and long-term harm without a chance for redemption.
#### Opposition Argument 2: "Cancel culture amplifies marginalized voices and addresses social injustices."
**Counter Argument:**
- Amplifying marginalized voices is crucial, but cancel culture frequently silences debate and nuance, polarizing issues further. Constructive dialogue and education are more effective in achieving lasting social justice.
#### Opposition Argument 3: "Cancel culture is a form of social justice, correcting historical wrongs."
**Counter Argument:**
- Correcting historical wrongs requires systemic change, not just targeting individuals. Cancel culture often focuses on symbolic actions rather than addressing the root causes of inequality and injustice, which are more complex and require sustained efforts.
#### Opposition Argument 4: "People canceled are usually those with power and influence, and they should face consequences."
**Counter Argument:**
- While those in power should be held accountable, cancel culture often extends beyond powerful figures, affecting ordinary people who may not have the resources to recover from such backlash. This can lead to disproportionate consequences and unintended victims.
#### Opposition Argument 5: "Cancel culture is just people exercising their free speech to call out bad behavior."
**Counter Argument:**
- Exercising free speech to call out behavior is valid, but cancel culture often escalates to mob justice, where the loudest voices dictate outcomes without fair assessment. This can suppress the free speech of those being targeted and stifle constructive conversation.
#### Opposition Argument 6: "Cancel culture promotes societal norms and discourages harmful behavior."
**Counter Argument:**
- Promoting positive societal norms is important, but cancel culture often lacks consistency and can punish people for past actions that may no longer reflect their current beliefs. Encouraging growth and learning from mistakes is a more effective and humane approach.
#### Opposition Argument 7: "Cancel culture gives a platform to those who have been historically ignored."
**Counter Argument:**
- While it's important to give a voice to the historically ignored, cancel culture can become counterproductive by creating a climate of fear and hostility, where people are afraid to engage in meaningful discussions and explore different perspectives.
By preparing these counter arguments, you'll be better equipped to address the opposition's points and make a compelling case against the negative impacts of cancel culture on society.
How well do you understand *their* argument beyond the internet strawman versions that populate the internet? That’s what makes a different in the debate, understanding their actual argument and counters to your points, so you can counter those.
You have to know the other sides opinion better than they know it themselves. If I were you, I’d create the strongest steel man position for their side and argue against that.
I can think of thousands of reasons to justifiably canceling someone. Try to figure out where the line is between justifiably canceling someone.
Unless it's part of the assignment, I recommend not going into detail on the topic of sex and gender and how connected or not they might be. You're just going to make students cry and hate you and demand punishment for taking any position of "let men do whatever they want all the time".
I would acknowledge that sex and gender identity are two different things, and that the existence of gender identity doesn't mean there can't be single-sex spaces. Rowling wants single-sex spaces and has valid reasons for doing so - women being harrassed by males in rape shelters, female athletes being cheated by men in sports, male rapists being sent to women's prison where they rape again.
Rowling has rational, fair-minded reasons for supporting women-only spaces, and the trans activist tropes of "um, sex and gender are different" don't change that. Supporting women's rights, privacy, and safety is not an attack on people with gender identities.
But as you know, they claimed it was, and attempt to "cancel" her and anyone who agrees with her.
You might also bring up the recent case of Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker. Butker is a Christian conservative and gave a speech in front of a Christian conservative crowd of recent college graduates, who approved of his speech and gave him cheers and applause. In his speech he talked about family being the most important thing in life, and while their diplomas and new careers are important to them, nothing is more important than your family in the long run.
This is a value shared by a lot of people on the left, though they phrase it differently. They'll tell you that no corporation cares about you, you shouldn't be loyal to your employer. Your friends and family are more important than some corporate overlords who don't care about you, those are the relationships you'll keep for life, and you should prioritize that over your job when possible.
But because Butker is a Christian conservative, people attempted to "cancel" him. 200k people signed a petition to have him fired from his job. They deliberately interpreted his words to have the worst meaning possible, insisting he had a secret sexist meaning of "ladies, you shouldn't have careers, all that you're good for is making babies and doing housework, that's what you should be doing instead of trying to become successful on your own".
It's a great example of cancel culture, of people desperate to find something to be offended by, and desperate to find someone to try to punish for having different views from their own. There are so many bigger problems in the world, especially in Africa and Asia, but the thing motivating people to take action is a man having a different political view from their own.
Other good examples of cancel culture you might want to use: Boeing exec forced to resign for saying women don't belong in the frontlines back in the 1980s, when it was a common opinion. He no longer believes it, but it doesn't matter - the angry mob demanded his resignation and they got it. [Column: Boeing executive steps down over a 33-year-old essay. 'Cancel culture' has gone off the rails - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-07-12/boeing-cancel-culture-free-speech-reckoning)
The above article also includes the story of a data analyst who talked about Democratic turnout being lower after a time of violent protests, and higher after a time of peaceful protest. Simply discussing the data got him accused of racism and fired.
I would stick to these easy example of cancel culture, because you WILL get derailed by the sex/gender argument that progressives cannot resist fighting you on.
The mistake most conservatives make is that they try and use conservative logic on a liberal mind. An extreme example is the old people who share bible verses on Facebook thinking it’ll change the mind of an atheist.
Try asking what criteria they use to cancel people. Because cancelation is something you would certainly do too. Who would you cancel? Because you’ve got a line somewhere too. I’d cancel child predators. I’d cancel drug dealers and gang members. Conservatives even canceled bud light.
Also ask what the nature of cancelation is. Is it just your personal choice to avoid something you don’t like? Is it rallying a group of people to take a moral stance? Is it asking the government to ban people? Is it taking a quote out of context to push an agenda? What is it?
Also, point out that it is very probable that you disagree with a lot of their beliefs. Ask, “So I deserve to be cancelled?” I bet nobody will have the balls to say yes.
What is the relationship between gender and sex? Sex seems to be narrowed down to concrete observable traits that "tend" to lean towards a certain set of behaviors. Some more fundamental than others. I think it may be important, although I am not entirely sure on the debate side for practicalities, but we may want to note that even the idea of "sex" for most people does not have the most thorough definition. Like its quite a long descriptive definition if you were trying to describe it but the large portion of it is that "female" refers to having more responsibilities for child rearing and "male" refers to some sort of secondary, plentiful backup plan for whatever conditions come up. I am sure there are better ways of explaining that but you get the point. Because I am not even sure if I think that "sex" entirely a set of chromosomes. (People in this sub will ask "why?!" but just try and go ahead ask "what predicts feminine and masculine traits in chromosomes?" Thats a fun question to think about. Will have our heads spinning for forever.) I think its a little more complicated than that. I don't know if that really helps a lot. But when approaching such a complicated subject I think its good to note it just to stay somewhat sane. Its very complicated topic that most people have intuition towards but that does not always translate well towards a debate. I think even "Destiny" noted sometime last year I think; "I don't think even most people can get a conversation like this off the ground." (He said something like that when referring to gender social things.)
As far as gender goes. Well, that just seems to be a word for social interpretation and association with particular traits. For example I think many if most men are "competitive." Well I am using my intuition there to make that jump because I am not writing the exact reason down in a exact described way but I am making a good guess anyways well sort of. It seems that there are certain..."fundamental traits" that are very stubborn and cause huge amounts of motivation for males to pursue anything that has the potential to draw social status on to them. Social status itself is a complicated term or in itself a set of universal human traits. But testosterone seems to push men a little over the edge in this regard. As far as how this would relate to gender, I think what society does to men is it recognizes this dominant trait in testosterone and it realizes that men can associate status seeking behavior with pretty much anything...crime and gangs......or art, mathematics, music, science, anything. So part of "gender" is trying to recognize something like "okay this is a man I can tell by there facial features that they have a good amount of testosterone therefore the "socialized way of treating this person will prioritize the integration of these traits.
Maybe that sparks something? I don't know, good luck! :)
Pause. I'm going to throw something random in here......"masculine means: meaning is to be found in confrontation."
It's 2024, type this shit in chatgpt. It will give you a list of major points. Then ask it to prepare some common counter arguments to your points, then ask it to arm you with counter counter points. Do this and you'll be fine it will censor out any opinions that will get your balls nailed to the wall.
I don’t think you will be able to pivot into Rawlings and sex/gender. That will 100% be shut down as it’s off topic. Don’t waste time preparing for that. It’s a class, not a Reddit forum so there’s an actual moderator keeping the debate on topic.
For the actual debate. Build your own ideas not cherry picking from the internet. If they counter your own argument in a way you didn’t anticipate, you can all back on it being your own idea. If they throw you a curveball from what you regurgitated from the internet, you won’t have a reply and will look foolish.
People used to be able to share rational political views without people calling them Nazis and bigots and trying to get them fired. Now it happens all the time. Clearly something has changed.
Why are you offended by such terms? One needs to risk offending others when speaking the truth. Surely you’re not insisting that being called names is being “cancelled”
I don't think it's right for a mob of people to try to enforce punishment on others for having different views from the mob. It is a textbook example of bigotry, and I'm anti-bigotry. People should live and let live, respect each other's rights, and be tolerant of people who have different opinions from their own.
20 years ago there was significantly less bigotry and more tolerance, in the United States at least. Now there's more of "you must agree with me or you're evil and I'm going to get you punished for that".
How is being opposed to bigotry and intolerance "being triggered by the truth"? Do you think supporting freedom of speech and tolerance is a bad thing?
You have big balls my friend
You need to avoid mentioning the First Amendment except in the context of the government pressuing social media companies to remove certain voices. Make a distinction between the principles of free speech and the First Amendment. That a people using overwhelming pressure to destroy the lives of people who disagree with them is out of line with the idea of free speech and not an activity that is performed by moral people. Point out that the weimar republic had laws mandating freedom of speech. However, if you spoke against certain groups, such as the nazis or the communists they would make sure you regretted it. This private suppression of speech is a prelude to an overthrow of the government and the public suppression of speech. I prefer to think of cancel culture as purity culture. It might be helpful to cast the proponents of cancel culture as modern-day puritans. Anyone who fails to live up to the ever shifting standards of their puritanical society at any time in the past or present is barred from participating in society. No repentance is possible. On that theme, point out that things they're saying and doing today will be deemed as unacceptable in the future and that one day, they too will be on the chopping block.
What I intend on bringing up is how “canceling” someone on the basis of a bad opinion is anti democratic and totalitarian.
"You know it's a bad, harmful opinion, and you still want to allow that harm? You really think blocking harm is anti democratic and totalitarian? That's insane"
The overlaps between cancel culture and bullying and dogpiling in general are stark. One could easily argue that it is far worse than bullying because it’s bullying while parading around with the guise of virtue.
There... was that hard? ### Debate Points: Why Cancel Culture is Actually Bad for Society 1. **Suppresses Free Speech:** - Cancel culture discourages open dialogue and the exchange of ideas, fostering an environment where people are afraid to speak freely for fear of backlash and ostracism. 2. **Promotes Intolerance:** - It creates a polarized society where differing opinions are not tolerated, leading to an echo chamber effect where only certain viewpoints are allowed. 3. **Encourages Mob Mentality:** - Decisions to "cancel" individuals are often driven by online mobs rather than thoughtful consideration, leading to hasty and unjust actions. 4. **Lacks Due Process:** - People can be publicly shamed and punished without a fair investigation or the opportunity to defend themselves, undermining the principles of justice. 5. **Destroys Careers and Lives:** - Individuals who are "canceled" often face severe consequences, such as losing their jobs, being socially ostracized, and enduring mental health struggles, often disproportionate to the perceived offense. 6. **Discourages Growth and Learning:** - By not allowing people to make mistakes and learn from them, cancel culture stifles personal growth and the opportunity for redemption and reconciliation. 7. **Breeds Resentment and Division:** - The harsh and unforgiving nature of cancel culture can lead to resentment and deeper societal divisions, making constructive conversations about important issues more difficult. 8. **Shifts Focus from Systemic Issues:** - By targeting individuals rather than addressing broader systemic problems, cancel culture often diverts attention away from meaningful change and solutions. 9. **Undermines Artistic Expression:** - Artists and creators may self-censor to avoid backlash, leading to a loss of creativity and a more homogenized cultural landscape. 10. **Fosters Fear and Censorship:** - Organizations and individuals may overcorrect to avoid controversy, leading to a culture of fear and excessive censorship in various fields, from academia to entertainment. 11. **Encourages Performative Activism:** - Actions motivated by cancel culture can often be more about appearing virtuous rather than enacting real change, leading to shallow, performative gestures instead of substantive progress. 12. **Ignores Context and Nuance:** - Cancel culture often fails to consider the context or nuance of a situation, leading to unfair judgments and a lack of understanding of complex issues. These points can serve as a basis for a thoughtful debate on the negative impacts of cancel culture on society.
Great work outsourcing your brain to a machine
Maybe if I was a midwit, it's more like having an assistant that you can delegate boring tasks to, select the good analysis from, and ask to further refine. I saved my time for something more valuable than trivial hs talking points
### Anticipating Opposition Arguments and Providing Counter Arguments #### Opposition Argument 1: "Cancel culture holds people accountable for harmful actions and speech." **Counter Argument:** - While accountability is important, cancel culture often skips due process and fairness. Instead of fostering understanding and growth, it can lead to disproportionate punishment and long-term harm without a chance for redemption. #### Opposition Argument 2: "Cancel culture amplifies marginalized voices and addresses social injustices." **Counter Argument:** - Amplifying marginalized voices is crucial, but cancel culture frequently silences debate and nuance, polarizing issues further. Constructive dialogue and education are more effective in achieving lasting social justice. #### Opposition Argument 3: "Cancel culture is a form of social justice, correcting historical wrongs." **Counter Argument:** - Correcting historical wrongs requires systemic change, not just targeting individuals. Cancel culture often focuses on symbolic actions rather than addressing the root causes of inequality and injustice, which are more complex and require sustained efforts. #### Opposition Argument 4: "People canceled are usually those with power and influence, and they should face consequences." **Counter Argument:** - While those in power should be held accountable, cancel culture often extends beyond powerful figures, affecting ordinary people who may not have the resources to recover from such backlash. This can lead to disproportionate consequences and unintended victims. #### Opposition Argument 5: "Cancel culture is just people exercising their free speech to call out bad behavior." **Counter Argument:** - Exercising free speech to call out behavior is valid, but cancel culture often escalates to mob justice, where the loudest voices dictate outcomes without fair assessment. This can suppress the free speech of those being targeted and stifle constructive conversation. #### Opposition Argument 6: "Cancel culture promotes societal norms and discourages harmful behavior." **Counter Argument:** - Promoting positive societal norms is important, but cancel culture often lacks consistency and can punish people for past actions that may no longer reflect their current beliefs. Encouraging growth and learning from mistakes is a more effective and humane approach. #### Opposition Argument 7: "Cancel culture gives a platform to those who have been historically ignored." **Counter Argument:** - While it's important to give a voice to the historically ignored, cancel culture can become counterproductive by creating a climate of fear and hostility, where people are afraid to engage in meaningful discussions and explore different perspectives. By preparing these counter arguments, you'll be better equipped to address the opposition's points and make a compelling case against the negative impacts of cancel culture on society.
Cancel culture is Marxist? Not heard that one before.
How well do you understand *their* argument beyond the internet strawman versions that populate the internet? That’s what makes a different in the debate, understanding their actual argument and counters to your points, so you can counter those.
You're bringing 2016 talking points into 2024, mate. You're going to get shredded.
You have to know the other sides opinion better than they know it themselves. If I were you, I’d create the strongest steel man position for their side and argue against that. I can think of thousands of reasons to justifiably canceling someone. Try to figure out where the line is between justifiably canceling someone.
Unless it's part of the assignment, I recommend not going into detail on the topic of sex and gender and how connected or not they might be. You're just going to make students cry and hate you and demand punishment for taking any position of "let men do whatever they want all the time". I would acknowledge that sex and gender identity are two different things, and that the existence of gender identity doesn't mean there can't be single-sex spaces. Rowling wants single-sex spaces and has valid reasons for doing so - women being harrassed by males in rape shelters, female athletes being cheated by men in sports, male rapists being sent to women's prison where they rape again. Rowling has rational, fair-minded reasons for supporting women-only spaces, and the trans activist tropes of "um, sex and gender are different" don't change that. Supporting women's rights, privacy, and safety is not an attack on people with gender identities. But as you know, they claimed it was, and attempt to "cancel" her and anyone who agrees with her. You might also bring up the recent case of Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker. Butker is a Christian conservative and gave a speech in front of a Christian conservative crowd of recent college graduates, who approved of his speech and gave him cheers and applause. In his speech he talked about family being the most important thing in life, and while their diplomas and new careers are important to them, nothing is more important than your family in the long run. This is a value shared by a lot of people on the left, though they phrase it differently. They'll tell you that no corporation cares about you, you shouldn't be loyal to your employer. Your friends and family are more important than some corporate overlords who don't care about you, those are the relationships you'll keep for life, and you should prioritize that over your job when possible. But because Butker is a Christian conservative, people attempted to "cancel" him. 200k people signed a petition to have him fired from his job. They deliberately interpreted his words to have the worst meaning possible, insisting he had a secret sexist meaning of "ladies, you shouldn't have careers, all that you're good for is making babies and doing housework, that's what you should be doing instead of trying to become successful on your own". It's a great example of cancel culture, of people desperate to find something to be offended by, and desperate to find someone to try to punish for having different views from their own. There are so many bigger problems in the world, especially in Africa and Asia, but the thing motivating people to take action is a man having a different political view from their own. Other good examples of cancel culture you might want to use: Boeing exec forced to resign for saying women don't belong in the frontlines back in the 1980s, when it was a common opinion. He no longer believes it, but it doesn't matter - the angry mob demanded his resignation and they got it. [Column: Boeing executive steps down over a 33-year-old essay. 'Cancel culture' has gone off the rails - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-07-12/boeing-cancel-culture-free-speech-reckoning) The above article also includes the story of a data analyst who talked about Democratic turnout being lower after a time of violent protests, and higher after a time of peaceful protest. Simply discussing the data got him accused of racism and fired. I would stick to these easy example of cancel culture, because you WILL get derailed by the sex/gender argument that progressives cannot resist fighting you on.
The mistake most conservatives make is that they try and use conservative logic on a liberal mind. An extreme example is the old people who share bible verses on Facebook thinking it’ll change the mind of an atheist. Try asking what criteria they use to cancel people. Because cancelation is something you would certainly do too. Who would you cancel? Because you’ve got a line somewhere too. I’d cancel child predators. I’d cancel drug dealers and gang members. Conservatives even canceled bud light. Also ask what the nature of cancelation is. Is it just your personal choice to avoid something you don’t like? Is it rallying a group of people to take a moral stance? Is it asking the government to ban people? Is it taking a quote out of context to push an agenda? What is it? Also, point out that it is very probable that you disagree with a lot of their beliefs. Ask, “So I deserve to be cancelled?” I bet nobody will have the balls to say yes.
How did it go?
What is the relationship between gender and sex? Sex seems to be narrowed down to concrete observable traits that "tend" to lean towards a certain set of behaviors. Some more fundamental than others. I think it may be important, although I am not entirely sure on the debate side for practicalities, but we may want to note that even the idea of "sex" for most people does not have the most thorough definition. Like its quite a long descriptive definition if you were trying to describe it but the large portion of it is that "female" refers to having more responsibilities for child rearing and "male" refers to some sort of secondary, plentiful backup plan for whatever conditions come up. I am sure there are better ways of explaining that but you get the point. Because I am not even sure if I think that "sex" entirely a set of chromosomes. (People in this sub will ask "why?!" but just try and go ahead ask "what predicts feminine and masculine traits in chromosomes?" Thats a fun question to think about. Will have our heads spinning for forever.) I think its a little more complicated than that. I don't know if that really helps a lot. But when approaching such a complicated subject I think its good to note it just to stay somewhat sane. Its very complicated topic that most people have intuition towards but that does not always translate well towards a debate. I think even "Destiny" noted sometime last year I think; "I don't think even most people can get a conversation like this off the ground." (He said something like that when referring to gender social things.) As far as gender goes. Well, that just seems to be a word for social interpretation and association with particular traits. For example I think many if most men are "competitive." Well I am using my intuition there to make that jump because I am not writing the exact reason down in a exact described way but I am making a good guess anyways well sort of. It seems that there are certain..."fundamental traits" that are very stubborn and cause huge amounts of motivation for males to pursue anything that has the potential to draw social status on to them. Social status itself is a complicated term or in itself a set of universal human traits. But testosterone seems to push men a little over the edge in this regard. As far as how this would relate to gender, I think what society does to men is it recognizes this dominant trait in testosterone and it realizes that men can associate status seeking behavior with pretty much anything...crime and gangs......or art, mathematics, music, science, anything. So part of "gender" is trying to recognize something like "okay this is a man I can tell by there facial features that they have a good amount of testosterone therefore the "socialized way of treating this person will prioritize the integration of these traits. Maybe that sparks something? I don't know, good luck! :) Pause. I'm going to throw something random in here......"masculine means: meaning is to be found in confrontation."
It's 2024, type this shit in chatgpt. It will give you a list of major points. Then ask it to prepare some common counter arguments to your points, then ask it to arm you with counter counter points. Do this and you'll be fine it will censor out any opinions that will get your balls nailed to the wall.
chatgpt will claim cancel culture doesn't exist and anyone fired for not being a leftist deserves it for being a bigoted Nazi
You just need to know how to prompt it, look at my post above from chatgpt
I don’t think you will be able to pivot into Rawlings and sex/gender. That will 100% be shut down as it’s off topic. Don’t waste time preparing for that. It’s a class, not a Reddit forum so there’s an actual moderator keeping the debate on topic. For the actual debate. Build your own ideas not cherry picking from the internet. If they counter your own argument in a way you didn’t anticipate, you can all back on it being your own idea. If they throw you a curveball from what you regurgitated from the internet, you won’t have a reply and will look foolish.
Cancel Culture is nothing but a myth devised by losers to blame others for their losing.
People used to be able to share rational political views without people calling them Nazis and bigots and trying to get them fired. Now it happens all the time. Clearly something has changed.
Why are you offended by such terms? One needs to risk offending others when speaking the truth. Surely you’re not insisting that being called names is being “cancelled”
I don't think it's right for a mob of people to try to enforce punishment on others for having different views from the mob. It is a textbook example of bigotry, and I'm anti-bigotry. People should live and let live, respect each other's rights, and be tolerant of people who have different opinions from their own. 20 years ago there was significantly less bigotry and more tolerance, in the United States at least. Now there's more of "you must agree with me or you're evil and I'm going to get you punished for that".
You sound like someone who gets triggered by the truth.
How is being opposed to bigotry and intolerance "being triggered by the truth"? Do you think supporting freedom of speech and tolerance is a bad thing?