The claim that cancel cultures appearance is single handedly responsible for a drop in violence that was entirely the fault of a more permissive attitude towards open debate seems quite a stretch to put it as politely as possible.
Are you implying it's a claim I've made? Because it isn't.
On the contrary, my claim is that if you take the world as a whole there has never been more permissive attitude towards open debate than today. But even in the so-called free world... Compare the treatment of JK Rowling got to the treatment MLK got.
It's irrelevant whether one thing can lead to the other. What's important is how often it does. If there's significantly less violence, it's a win.
I guess it could be a bit difficult to see from the US where you had the first amendment forever. But the rest of the world is not like that.
The claim that cancel cultures appearance is single handedly responsible for a drop in violence that was entirely the fault of a more permissive attitude towards open debate seems quite a stretch to put it as politely as possible.
Are you implying it's a claim I've made? Because it isn't.
On the contrary, my claim is that if you take the world as a whole there has never been more permissive attitude towards open debate than today. But even in the so-called free world... Compare the treatment of JK Rowling got to the treatment MLK got.
3 replies →