 Ladies and gents, discussion world. Thanks for showing up today. We've got another interesting discussion. We're gonna have a four-way tonight. We have Ninetales and Kaz, Steve and Amy. And we're gonna be talking about council culture because Steve and Amy are taking the affirmative. We're gonna let them go first. Basically, we're going to have a 10-minute opening followed by a discussion period of about 40 minutes. And we're gonna let each side split their opening however they want. I just wanna say to everybody who's new here, hit that subscribe button, hit like if you end up liking this discussion. And this is a place where we want everybody to feel welcome so try to be easy in the comments and let's just be friendly. But feel free to send in a super chat or a question. If you're sending in a super chat, I'll kick it to the top of the Q&A portion. And then if not, tag me at Converse Contender. I'll be in the live stream. And I will try to answer your question at the end in the Q&A. We'll set apart about 20 to 30 minutes for that. All right, with that aside, we're gonna go ahead and kick it over to Steve and Amy for their opening. I think we said I was going first so just give me one second. Are you guys able to see my PowerPoint? Is that a yes? Can't hear you guys. No, no, Sharon. No, not yet. That's weird. Not yet. Hold on one second. I'm sorry, try to add it again. Application, I think I got it. Let's see, how about now? Yeah, it just showed up. Just showed up? All right, perfect. Fantastic. Welcome everyone to why we should replace cancel culture with debate culture. What I mean by this is I want people to be offensive and that sometimes we have to offend people to make a point. The words black lives matter or no gods exist may offend people, but that's okay. If an idea is good, it will withstand scrutiny or peer review. Thus, we should be fostering a healthy culture of debate where we can attack other people's ideas instead of the people themselves and that we can truly learn to live with each other even when we have radically different ideas. This is especially true with comedians as being offensive is built into the job description. We're often strange, disturbed, and sometimes freaky people shouting offensive things. I also believe that when done correctly, we are the best champions of the underdogs. Louis C.K. is a good example. Motherfucker gets lonely during masturbation and apparently thinks it can become a visual sport. However, he's also fucking funny and one of the best social commentators out there. So what about the women? Well, their situation matters as well. I support the Me Too movement and I'm only asking for proportional justice. As far as I can tell, Louis C.K. asked permission to every single girl that he performed his dracathlon to, which you can say is fucking disgusting and we can talk about the power dynamics of the rich and famous. However, him seeking and getting consent is the reason I'm going to keep listening to this fat balding freak, which makes things even harder when it's people I disagree with or since Scott Card is a Mormon or as I call them Christians, but in space. A religion that makes no sense founded by a con man who helps you wear magical underwear. That being said, Ender's game's pretty good. And if the story's message is a generally thought provoking one, then I don't want to have to pick between the author's stupid personal beliefs and their published fiction, which brings us to J.K. Rowling. I disagree with a whole bunch of what J.K. Rowling has said on the subject and for a writer, she sure sucks at communication. But if this bitch makes three more Harry Potter books, sign me up. Though I'd like to think if I had a conversation with her, I'd be able to clear up some of the common misconceptions that she has about transgenders. No cancel needed. In fact, we can all have lunch. Who doesn't love lunch? Though I understand those who feel differently that when you know a person's politics that sometimes this muddies the whole damn thing, these subjects can bleed over into each other. The Fundies don't want to think about Dumbledore being gay. I think Dumbledore being gay is hot. Instead of calling up a movie company, trying to cancel a movie or fire someone on staff, simply don't see the movie and they'll never make another one. This goes for when anti-LGBT people make media, but also when I make my anti-religion media. In a thriving society, we're gonna have differences of opinion. But when people say and do stupid things, the correct answer isn't to cancel them. It's to begin a dialogue that's hopefully beneficial for our species as a whole. Or till we drive each other crazy. Either or, thank you. All right, awesome. Thanks so much for that. You're gonna kick it over to Steve. Yes, thanks again, moderate database for welcoming me back to discuss this important and topical subject. As always, thanks for Congress for hosting. Thanks for cast for joining me again for the rhetorical fist to cuffs on the subject and nine tails for joining. Thank you, Amy, for your patience. I know you really wanted to get into this last week and I'm glad you have the opportunity to do it tonight. Finally, thanks to anybody hanging out in the chat. Hopefully we give you some thoughtful entertainment tonight. So I'll try not to tread over the same territory I did as I did last week, but things have developed in the last eight days that get us plenty more to discuss. And our last debate has mentioned something that struck me pretty deeply. And I keep on thinking about cancer culture through and has kept me thinking about cancer culture through the meantime. You said that we will all get canceled. I wholeheartedly disagree with this sentiment. To me, it seems like a mindset to defend even the most base level of the self-proclaimed committee on public decency. I mentioned some examples of excesses of cancer culture last week, such as James Bennett's firing at the New York Times for running an opinion piece from Tom Cotton. That entire situation continues to cascade. Barry Weiss, the center-right opinion writer of the New York Times that was brought into the times after Trump's election to balance the paper's opinion section, resigned this week after claiming constant harassment for political views in the newsroom. She stated, intellectual curiosity, let alone risk-taking, is now a liability, where the opinions of Twitter users have become the paper's ultimate editor. Her reservation statement, which was part of a racist nation statement, the continued ideological purification of America's paper of record steam rolls along. But this culture of intolerance continues to bleed down to target individuals that may not have the power to weather the storm. I mentioned Emmanuel Cafferty, who was fired for a picture of his hand resembling an okay gesture outside of a work truck. I'll write an older story of Nick Sandman, I'm sure everybody remembers as the mega kid, who was smoking in an elder native during a pro-life rally. CNN portrayed him as a white supremacist using selective reporting in images. He ended up getting docks for the event and eventually won a $275 million definition case against CNN for the attack. More recently, Rachel Marshall, owner of Rachel's Ginger Beer in Seattle, was viciously attacked on social media for wearing dreadlocks. As one post placed it, Seattle, we gotta talk. Rachel owns Rachel's Ginger Beer in Seattle with multiple locations. She is a white woman with dreadlocks and allegedly gives her product to cops, the people brutalizing her customer base. For free, I continue to say, we aren't in a post-racial utopia and there is no federal law to protect black people from being penalized for their natural or productive hairstyling. Hell, we are trying to convince everyone black lives matters. So until racial equity is achieved in wealth, politics, education, and work, white people should not be wearing dreads out of love, solidarity, and respect for black people. At least, this is my current understanding. As a result, Rachel felt compelled to initial apology and stated that she would start working with diversity and equity firms to improve her company's policies. In one of the most egregious recent events, Gary Gilles of San Francisco Modern Art Museum was forced to resign after accusations of being foaming at the Mount White's premises. The crime he committed was that while he was stating the museum would make greater efforts to acquire pieces from diverse and marginalized group, they wouldn't stop buying from white artists. As we discussed last week, I do not disagree that there can be practical and rational applications to cancel culture. There are actions that are taken by individuals so egregious that they need to be called out. The canceled culture seems to have zeroed in on anything that steps out of line of its narrowly defined right thing. We had someone on this channel recently targeted by a roving moderation group for making contextual joke that had nothing to do with race but everything about the subject of evolution. Context, rationality, sensibility, these are things elusive to cancel culture. Instead, they apply an offense, passion and judgment as their trait. It's a bogeyman to silence dissent against a progressive and very narrow and unwritten code of progressive righteousness. I'm gonna finish off with another quote from a respected member of the left, former president candidate, Andrew Yang, who was speaking on the firing of Shane Gilles of SNL just before the season started. I think it was about two years ago. One thing a friend of mine said that was interesting. He said, everyone becomes angry at this individual and they lose their job or lose their opportunities and their life has changed. And then we move on. And then that person's life has still been, in some cases, irrevocably altered even as the rest of us have moved on. Mr. Yang added, so to me it's vital that we humanize each other, we humanize the consequences of some of these impulses and not just in terms of who hears the expression but who is losing their livelihood as a result. Now we yield my time. All right, thanks so much for that. Open statement. Now we're gonna kick it over to the other side. Caz or Ninetales, who would like to go first? Yeah, I'm gonna go first. All right, good. Okay, thank you, Converse. Thank you, Steve, Ninetales and Amy. I don't wanna take up too much time this time. I got to say a lot last debate against Steve and I know that Ninetales is eager to go ahead and let you guys have it. So I'm gonna just make this quick and painless. First of all, I just wanna dispel the notion of the way that we compare our cancelings to lynchings and mob rule. First of all, the cancellations are never done by the people on Twitter. They are not capable of actually canceling anyone. They're just people who are voicing their opinion. And a lynching is a extra judicial, extra, excuse me, extra judicial, premeditated killing by a group. Emphasis on the word killing. People actually get murdered in a lynching. This just happened, was it last week, the week before that, Robert Fuller was found hanging from a tree. So it's not something that we wanna make light of. It's not something that we wanna compare in out of hand. I wanna say that everyone is in favor of cancel culture when it suits them. I can come up with a thought experiment or example of something in which everybody will say, yes, I want that person fired. If it's a waiter at the restaurant that you just had dinner and they cursed you out, spat in your food or something like that, you would definitely go to the manager and try to get that guy canceled. So I just wanna say that as Amy said in her opening, we should try to foster a world with more skepticism, more empiricism, more debating. I wanna talk about the fact that a lot of people that get canceled, they are just fine. And sometimes we are a little bit too quick to feel sorry for them. Somebody like Kevin Hart, who has several movies coming out, Mel Gibson has three movies coming out this year. Both of these guys were canceled for saying horrible things and they're doing just fine. And I'm sure that I could find a whole lot more examples of that. We need to hammer home that this is hyperbly, this is hyperbly, the way that we are opposing this. Everybody has freedom of speech. Everybody has the right to say what they want to who they want. And if you're a company, you have the right to fire people that work for you that might destroy your ability to make profits. So this is all an attack on free speech in my opinion. To suggest that people who demand somebody be terminated, well let me just say this. If you are that worried about it, you can have a clause put into your employment contract that says that you can not be canceled, that you get some kind of recompense if you are canceled, something like that. We just need to evolve and try to make it the best out of the situation. I think that this is a democratic process that the people get their chance to be heard when companies, when politicians, when all these other structures are incapable or unwilling to hear us. And with that, I yield my time. All right, thanks so much for that. We'll kick it over to Ninetales. Okay, thank you everybody. Hello and thank you for coming to this debate. Tonight I'd like to introduce and substantiate the idea that the concepts behind canceling somebody has value in a progressive society where we want to do more than simply denounce the now complicated ways in which vulnerable people or groups can be targeted by those with power or the influence to do so. The term with great power comes great responsibility is thought to come from Spider-Man comic books, but it's really from at least the 1793 French Revolution. What it represents is the notion that power can be wielded in ugly ways and those with more power can do more harm than those without. Anyone who has dealt with a bully over time knows how things tend to evolve. They try to do so nonchalantly a few times, get caught, then learn to take it out on you in ways which don't get noticed. This age old tradition of learning to subvert authority by doing something only when someone isn't looking, resorting to inside jokes and finding new methods of passive aggression has become much less popular with the deep peace and the mentality that acting like a bully is acceptable and just something kids do. As a species, we developed a means for acknowledging the act of bullying and it was to call it out, remove the means of targeted aggression, for example, slurs and ultimately canceling the bully if they refuse to stop. You can think of suspensions that way. In this somewhat democratic world, we can see the same things taking place. There are people who are concerned with influential people holding views of hatred or trying to spread fear. It seems discussions have taken place and what people want is accountability and transparency within the institutions which foster such power and influence. If my opponents are critics of violent overthrows but fans of unfettered discourse, then I must ask that they consider why they can't accept the moderate solution. Cancel culture is the next logical nonviolent step for doing something when the conversation breaks down and nothing else can get someone to change their ways. If we are as a people are going to hold those with power responsible, especially in a way which won't enable the same behavior by waiting for something bad enough to happen that the legal system kicks in. And I think cancel culture or more so call of culture intertwined with the infamous PC culture is only something to be expected. I think this one-sided rhetoric is really convenient for far right talking heads, looking to find easy ways to take down progressivism since it diminishes the value of true activists who are either trying to have proper discussions or generate civil action. It's an easy out when all you want to focus on is the one or two losers and the bunch giving your opponent any, sorry, and giving your opponent any credit would immediately dismantle your talking points. Also, I think something worth noting is just how it's just an essentialist way of describing call of culture and PC culture at the same time, which really dumbs down what's going on. Clearly the mob can only demand justice and it's ultimately institutions which decide if action is taken. Harassment is a very subjective thing. It's kind of logical when you consider that it's also probably just a mass reaction happening all at once. The masses probably don't agree with the actions taken by people who are too aggressively off point to begin with, they are just a minority. I hope I can convince you all of the utility of holding those who are powerful and influential accountable for their actions. If we were going to live in a just and inclusive society, then simply questioning the fear mongering and targeted speech taking place will not suffice. And that is my time. All right, thanks so much for that. We'll kick it over to the other side for the open discussion. Looks like we might have lost the video here. Hang on one sec. All right, go ahead, Amy or Steve. Go ahead and kick it off. Go ahead, Amy. Okay, so I think it's important and I saw it in the chat. Maybe we should get a definition down of what cancel culture is. My definition would be a form of online shaming. Anyone have a question? I don't mind that at all. I think that it's definitely a call from the public to shame or remove from public interaction a specific person. Would you say that that works to Ninetales? Oh yeah, totally. It's not accepting certain behaviors that, well, you're not. And so, okay, so then shame is my primary word here. And what I worry about, I always try and think would someone who has different views than me try to do the same thing to me. So I guess would you guys be open because I think this came in waves. I think that there was a reactionary wave and that they were firing people to be gay and that this was a form of cancel culture. We did not name it cancel culture, but there was a time where, oh my God, Bob is gay and then we tell everybody and it gets to the boss and boss doesn't like that Bob is gay and he fires him. Now, our politics have changed a little bit but it just seems like the other side is now doing it even though it's my politics I agree with. Well, yeah, I agree that we do take things way too far sometimes. I think they definitely did back in the day and that the politics that they used were very circumspect to say the least. I think that now when we cancel someone, it's usually because they are transgressing against our inclusivity. We are trying to be a more inclusive society. We're trying to let people be equal to everyone and these are the people that are trying to say, I don't really like that too much and they should have a right to say what they want but they also need to be prepared for the consequences. What do you think I'm doing? I just think that when you look at what's going on, I haven't really seen a whole lot of people shaming anybody directly. It's more like saying this person's position in society and their influence isn't acceptable alongside of their views and so we are having a discussion about ideas and we're not always targeting people and it usually seems pretty bad when it's after the person and I think that that's less ideal. So one of the things that... Yeah, I was just gonna say one of the things I try to emphasize in my point is that it's not exclusive to just the rich and powerful. I mean, those are the easy ones that we can see because they're the ones that everybody knows. You know who was one of the folks that I mentioned. I mean, everybody knows or at least has knowledge of what occurred at the New York Times. Everybody has knowledge of what happened to Jimmy Fallon and things like that. Those are easy examples because everyone knows that. And I want to talk about those too later. I want to talk about that New York Times one really bad. Sure, sure. Sorry. No, it's okay, it's okay. There's a couple of us in here so there's a lot to say at the subject. And one of the things that I try to emphasize is this is not just, you know, there are utilities. I have no problem with the assault that went on with Harvey Weinstein. I expressed that in the first debate. You know, that's fine. For some of what the Me Too movement did, yes, I can accept that. But then there's this slippery slope. And again, I know it's an argumentable fallacy, but it does happen because we're seeing this mentality where it's not just targeting the rich and powerful, it's targeting anyone that doesn't fit into a narrow box that necessarily agrees with where you are. I mean, look, just think about this. Here, I'm certain that me and Amy agree probably on nothing else other than this. But we're still both on one side stating, you know, this does seem like it's going too far. It's leaped over the hurdle of just trying to knock out those that deserve it. And now it's just looking for targets is where we got people on Twitter that are searching and using what actually I heard this term today, and I really liked it, Stephen Picker mentioned as archeological offenses. They're digging into people's past to find something that offends them so they can target that individual. And it's beyond the pale. Yeah, but you know what you could do is cancel them too. You know, you can always cancel those people that are doing that. Now we're in a cancel war, just trying to cancel everybody, well. Just cancel and cancel culture. It's not just offending somebody, right? People are actually concerned about what that person's saying or doing. If someone with influence like Lucy Kaye does something like that, there could be people who look up to him who thinks that that's okay, even if they didn't quite get the consent thing. Okay, well, and see, I want to talk about that situation. So I want to, first of all, make a meter, a bar with I believe that Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein are on this bar. And I also feel that there is a, what's the word I'm trying, there's a whole path of different transactions that end up with just saying something rude. And then there's a whole lot of space in between. When I come back to the situation with Lucy Kaye, what he did was make women feel awkward, but he asked for their consent in every time. Now I will say there was an accusation of him doing things on the phone. I don't know how you would prove that sort of thing. But I guess my question is he was always gonna be weird and comedians, I hate to say it, but we're all weird. And if you were to try and like get rid of the weirdness, you would have people talking about the weather on stage. I think that Lucy Kaye is a good example because even though there was a lot of outrage initially, he is still making his comeback. And he's getting more and more popular as that goes on. And I think that that is fair because what he did in the grand scheme of things, not so bad, right? I think we all can agree to that. When he gets, when people get canceled and they have a chance to redeem themselves, to apologize, to make amends and then slowly but surely come back from the career grave, that's a good thing. And when we see that happening, that means canceled culture is working. Yeah, I also don't think it's like this binary thing. I see Amy's trying to talk, is she muted? Oh no, don't mind me. I would just go and I process things, you're good. Yeah, if I could just go on. I think that there might be some extremists who are like ruined this person's life and those people get a lot more attention than like the general proper discussion that's taking place. So like, I don't think the culture itself has a binary view of the person nor does it have a binary idea of how to solve it. It's just like from the person's point of view who was quote being canceled, it would probably seem rather extreme because of how social media works. I think the last time we spoke, Steve had made a point about the low percentages of people in the grand scheme that actually want to have somebody canceled. And I think that that just speaks to this hyper profit driven philosophy where the company has no morals, no values whatsoever. They don't have any kind of principles to even judge a situation by. So as soon as there's any kind of outrage or public outcry, then they immediately have to protect their profits by firing the person. And that is another aspect of it entirely that we haven't even talked about. And advertisers. Oh, yeah. Yes. Well, I mean, I mean, that's what a lot of cancel culture targets, especially when I mean, obviously they're not canceled or they're not targeting the advertisers of Rachel's ginger beer shop in Seattle, but they're attacking her directly. There's a tax, again, we see the easy ones. We see the low hanging fruit with the celebrities and things like that. Those are the folks that can weather these kinds of things that they don't have to, I mean, they can get canceled and then they can have that redemption or that's fine. But, you know, someone that's just, you know, makes a mistake says something wrong and it gets posted on public media or social media and all of a sudden they get fired. I mean, what utility does that have in the grand scheme of things? That's attacking someone's livelihood. And we're not talking about rich people. They can take those kind of hits. Is it not common sense though, sorry, Kaz, that a company might not want their brand associated with whoever they're firing. Maybe it's not the person themselves. Maybe it's the association of the brand. They don't want people thinking of that the next time they buy that product. But with that, go. Well, a few times it's just a hip fire though. Sorry, go ahead, I mean. No, you're fine. But I just want to know if that goes the other direction. So if it's a Christian company, should they be allowed to fire someone who's gay because the Bible says to kill them? No, but if they have a person who is gay and they're, I don't know, trying to disrupt the, I don't know, what could a gay person do in a workplace explicitly against work policies that would be worthy of firing? I mean, if they wanted to play, let's say they try to start a raid in the middle of a work day, you know? But we wouldn't, see, I despise racism and I despise sexism and I despise all these things, but you're firing people for their ideas. It's not even if someone did something racist or if someone did something sexist, it's for their views. It's views that could have been changed in those two years. It's not really just their views, though. It's really the way that they've chosen to express that view because there's usually a screenshot or a recorded video or something like that. You've chosen not only to have this view, not only to share it with your friends and family, but to put it in the public space. And once you do that, I mean, if you write anything on Facebook, you know it's going to be judged. You know that people are going to respond to it. And that's why you're in the first place. If someone's a Christian, they work for a Christian company and they announced they're gay on Facebook, do you think that's grounds for firing? If... No, if they announced that they're gay on Facebook, if you announced that you're racist on Facebook, would you be fired for that? I know the racists don't say they're racist. They say politically correct things like all lives matter. Because it's not offensive. Whether you just said, I'm a racist, and you just put that on Facebook, that I don't think you should get fired for. If you just say, I'm gay, you shouldn't get... But if you do something... I wish they just said that. That'd be easier. And all the males in your company, all the same, you're just putting out your behavior in the company's face. That's a different thing than just saying, I am who I am, and this is me. So could I ask something though? Because it seems like there's a lot of glossing over any harm that's actually done. So I don't think being gay, there's any objective way that you could say that being gay causes harm. You could say I disagree with that, that no one's going to agree with you if you say, this person being gay makes it impossible for me to have us. For example, a safe work environment. So I think my question for you guys is, do you think for the most part, there is real harm being addressed, or do you think it's the opposite that it's more about nothing? Well, I think every once in a while, as I've made some references to things where it has done good, where there are utilities for it, I mean, it's apparent that when there's someone attacking another person, either through threats or through, I mean, I don't want to use words as weapons because I think it's kind of a moot point. But as long as they're not utilizing that function in an aggressive way to essentially be little, a specific individual, a specific individual. Now, I mean, you can say that if you were little a class, then yes, you're targeting those specific individuals within that class. And I don't like utilizing class as a term because I'm more of an individualist myself personally. But where does that line get drawn between you saying, well, if I, as Cass was saying, and as Amy I think was trying to expound upon, having a homosexual person in a Christian organization can be detrimental to that business's livelihood if that's what their business objective is. I mean, there's, I mean, I'm not one of them, but there's plenty of Christians out there that will not accept homosexuality as something. Can I just add? Yes. Is that like their personal opinion or is there actually something functional that prevents them from having homosexuals to work there? Well, if it's functional, if you're asking whether it's functional, if that's their target demographic, if they're saying we are a conservative Christian organization, we accept these certain things within our worldview, then those things that fall outside of that purview shouldn't be allowed to be within that organization. Now, I don't necessarily agree with that position. I don't think that any organization should have those restrictions, but there's a, you know, we have this thing called freedom of association and that's actually something that you, that the cancel culture is utilizing to shield its attempts to knock people out of positions that they disagree with, that you have the right to fire someone for whatever reason. Now, if we want to say that there's certain protective classes, then we have to be honest about that. If that's what the argument is, then I understand that, but then what are we, are we just saying that there's certain kind of speeches that are, and where do we draw the line between what is acceptable speech and what isn't? Because I've never seen a line. I mean, there's probably people in the chat right now that think I'm a raging white, right-wing lunatic, right? I can't believe you were really saying some of the things I... The simple answer is to listen to those communities. You know, if someone's saying something racist in the black community, like, you know, racist against black people, but the black community says, we don't appreciate that, you know, we don't want that to, we don't want someone representing that and using their platform to do so, then I think that there's a valid concern in that because they know their experience better than we do. What percentage of the population needs to make that decision before it becomes consensus? I guess if you want to look at that. I think it plays out like a discourse and, you know, there's opinions on both sides. When you say that, like, it somehow has to begin past a certain point, you're also kind of asking for perfect execution. No one's claiming there's flawless execution. This Twitter, for example, is a wild west of social interaction. But at the same time, people want accountability and transparency for these things. And I think that I often hear very valid reasons that they want these things to happen. And sometimes it gets drowned out with some nonsense. People have to be free to be able to express when they feel this kind of way. When somebody's opinion, when somebody's behavior is harmful to them or damaging to their way of life, then they have a right to at least express it. We always hear from the right wing, they don't want big government, they want minimum government regulation, they want to vote with your dollars. But then when we actually start to do that, now it's a problem. Now we're all in cancel culture. And I think that's just ridiculous. This is what we were supposed to be doing. We're not using the government to force you to do anything. We're not trying to get you arrested. We're not trying to kill you. We're just saying, you suck. And you all should know that. But, okay, so that was the other thing. Why go for their job? Like, if the goal is to change their mind, if the goal is to get them to think of new ideas, to be more enlightened, to be more open-minded, my problem is, is that it seems like revenge. A lot of this doesn't seem like this is the, coming from the open-minded, here we come to help enlighten you. It seems, hey, bitch, we're gonna get you fired. We gotta make you disappear. We gotta make you disappear. You better, you can try to forgive yourself now or else get the hell out. I see a lot of people responding to, for example, if someone works for a company, they don't wanna buy that product, knowing that that person represents that company. It's hard for them to not think about that when buying that product anymore. I'm reminded to that. Ultimately, this decision is up to the company. So I think you're kind of discounting the fact that these companies agree with this point. I'm not 100% sure that they agree as more as much they're like, holy moly, we care about profit and look, buddy, I don't know what your views are, but we can get rid of you and keep on making profit. So, you know. Well, it sounds like there's a functional reason to get rid of them. Yeah, make money. But that's not really changing people's minds. That's once again, trying to get revenge. That's once again, trying to be like, you were an asshole, you're racist, we found you, and now we can get rid of you. But it's not really about learning. Can I just get here? The real reason for them being removed is because they're whatever position that they may have held is being amplified through social media and directed at the company. And by the way, I mean, if you're, I don't, I don't want to say that. Well, Twitter's amplifying them too, right? And their position of that power is giving them more. Well, yeah, yeah, but that's true. But I mean, again, there's a process for open discourse. Or you can disagree with someone specifically. And again, I'm not including like the hardcore, obviously, beyond the pale, you know, racist and, you know, like way beyond the regular folk. What I'm looking at is people that may have made an indiscretion in the past that's dug up and then they find, oh, look at this, this guy said something 20 years ago. Well, what I'm gonna do now is I'm gonna take that to their boss and show their boss what they said 20 years ago and essentially say, you know what? This person said this. And I make sure, I'm gonna make sure that you lose profits and you're gonna be on the back end of this mass culture movement, which I mean, it is. I mean, it's not organized. It's not like directed or anything like that. But there's enough people out there that do jump onto the bandwagon and say, you know what? This looks like something that we need to show this person. We don't really know what they did or really cared necessarily. We just know that we don't agree with what this person said at this, whatever they said it. And we're gonna make sure that that person's livelihood is ruined because of it. That's where the problem comes in. There is real utility here because it increases the moral conscientiousness of the entire population. Everybody is now careful with their words. They have to stop and consider is what I'm about to say when they hurt someone. I mean, yeah, not everybody's going to. Not everybody's gonna learn the lesson, but if you haven't figured it out yet, you're kind of slow. I mean, I'm sorry, but you need to pay attention here because when we hurt each other, there will be consequences. And now that we've all learned that lesson, we can see it play out. It will make us all a little bit more careful the next time around. So where does discourse go? Is any disagreement now? See, that's where I get worried about because it does seem like it's gone from racism, specifically targeting people that are obvious racists or sexual predators and things like that, down to even folks that make jokes or maybe say something flippantly or accidentally make the wrong sign when they're dangling their hand out of the window and I know I use that reference a lot or even say something against what the popular mindset of what cancel culture is. I mean, I just asked. I know, go ahead. Oh yeah, can I just ask though, like, sorry, I'm in the top top. Like what, is there a utility, ultimate utility to discourse for holding these people accountable? Like if we just have a discourse, aren't we just kind of letting them get in a way with saying awful things? I think this is about acknowledging that the discourse isn't enough. See, but doesn't you mean them getting away? Doesn't that mean like you're trying to get at them? Is that? I think there should be valid consequences when you have the power of influence and if we're gonna live in a just society, like I said, we shouldn't wait around for something awful to happen and for the justice system to kick in for kind of just being complicit. And there are some things that we don't want the justice system involved in. But it's just bad ideas. They didn't break a law. They didn't do anything that... I think the majority of cancel culture is targeted at harmful ideas. If you want to focus on outliers, I think that's your prerogative. Well, I wanted to break a law. They're not going to jail. They're not going to be executed. They're not going to have any kind of record. It's not that big of a deal. Yeah, that's another point. I want to specifically targeting outliers. I mean, isn't that what it's supposed to be doing? It's not supposed to be targeting the core culture. Oh, it's misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that you guys are... No, no, I understood what you said. I understood what you said. Okay, well, I think that these examples of people misusing it get a lot more attention than what it's used effectively because nobody's outraged by that. It's like, oh, this person who deserved to get fired got fired. The outrage occurs when there's these outlying examples. That's fired. I find that... No, I'm going to use a... Go ahead. I didn't want to step on you. Go ahead, Amy. No, it's just this whole deserve to be fired. But did they do something to deserve to be fired or did they just have a bad idea that we agree with politically? It can have... Your boss should be the one to make the decision. Yeah, and you can make a... Sorry, Kaz, do you want to continue? No, no, that's all I had to say. Okay, and you can make a work environment hostile by having hostile views about the people you work with. Okay, but not if they're... If they're never expressed. They're never allowed. Well, no, we're talking about... I mean, if they're not expressed at the workplace. Yeah, we found them 10 years ago, they said something horrible, and now they have to pay the consequences for it. But doesn't that assume that those people, those other coworkers don't also use the same social media? So if they know that their employee, their coworker used that language on social media, regardless of when it was, I think that makes them feel unsafe or unwelcome. So if the... But how about if the other person has uncomfortable beliefs? What if they have views that they don't like working with the other person, but they put it aside and keep on working and doing their job? Or do they have views that makes that other person feel unwelcome? Is there something objective about that process? It can't just be about the views. It's gotta be about the way that they've expressed those views. Couldn't you say if you knew someone was like an extreme... Well, I won't name extreme. Let's just say very right wing. You knew they were very right wing. Would you treat them differently? I think a good employer would consider how that makes their employees feel. And if they have a valid reason to think that causes a problem, then yeah, it should be up to the employer to keep the environment. That's really right wing. But if one person just makes a really big stink about it and says, oh, well, this person, I don't quite know what they believe, but I'm pretty sure they voted for Trump. And that person, I don't know if they, what they believe, why they voted for Trump, but it makes me feel really uncomfortable. We're already beyond the pale team culture though, because we're talking about the discretion of the employer. Now, we're beyond like the mob mentality. Most people are at will employees. Yeah, so what is your solution here? I wanna know a solution that you guys have to propose. Is there, what would you do to make this whole thing better? I have a solution, but hold on. I just wanna flip that question before we move on. So an employer finds out, he's a station worker, finds out one of their employees is a communist. Do you think that they have the right to fire them because they don't think that it's productive to a capitalist workplace? If that communist worker is posting on social media, that they wanna kill all the bosses and that they wanna take all the capital by force or something like that, then hell yeah, fire them. Yeah, personally I would ask, is there a functional problem that you could solve? Even if it was 20 years ago. Hey, everybody, we're gonna go for about another 10 minutes or so and I just wanna let everyone in the audience know, you can tag me with your questions for the Q and A. I'm in the chat at Converse Contender and if there's anything you wanna ask, we'll go there in about 10 minutes or so. There's something I really wanna get to real quick. I'm just, this little point. I just wanted to mention about the New York Times article Ms. Barry Weiss. So it turns out that she participated in some cancellations of her own? I did, I did three briefly on that. I did three briefly on that regarding Israel, I think that's what it was. Eli Valley, who is an artist, he is making art in opposition to the Zionist Israeli government and she is of the impression that anybody who opposes that is an anti-Semite. If you say anything negative about the Israeli government, you're an anti-Semite to her and so she will do whatever she can to get you canceled. In that situation, but God forbid that somebody that she agrees with gets fired. Oh, that it's just unacceptable and she will write you a whole long, long, long, long. Well, I mean, she was way outnumbered at the New York Times. I mean, you gotta understand that. She's so full of it, man. In fairness, she gets flack from both sides. I think there's gonna be more than out of what occurs there. If I could just find anything out. Could I ask my opponents if any of them can make a direct link between leftist values and how that causes cancel culture directly? I already know PC culture, so if you could think about something that specifically is leftist because PC culture can also be right-wing. See, I'm a centrist. So I believe that both the right and the left can be politically correct. A good example, I like choice and I like life. I guess we're gonna have to talk about abortion then. So that's why feeling's on that. So just to kind of... Okay. Yeah, since I'm the only libertarian conservative here, I guess that was pretty much directly at me. So no, I agree. I agree with Amy on this. There was a such, I don't know how old folks are, but back in the nineties, there was something called banned books. It was a big deal. These are books that were banned by mostly conservatives. Not always conservatives, but it was utilized to say, these are certain books that they have things that aren't supposed to be disseminated widely. Some of those included like Tom Sawyer or in Fahrenheit 451, things that really express, I would say more progressive values. I mean, Tom Sawyer probably not so much, but so I do know that it happens on the right. And I'm not saying it's right there either. That's one of the reasons why I left conservatism in general is due to the hypocrisy that does exist on that side. I'm more of the idea that we should have open dialogue. We should be looking at opposing ideas. Sometimes those opposing ideas are pretty damn ugly, unfortunately, but just setting them along in their box and assuming that they're gonna go away or assaulting those individuals without explaining why they're wrong. And that's the thing, why they're wrong. Not necessarily just attacking the individual but explain why this is wrong. So you can, I mean, we all know racism is bad, but there's such a broad definition of what racism is nowadays that I don't even know what I can say anymore and I don't consider myself racist at all. From my perspective, I see that again, I don't consider myself racist, but someone else might consider me racist for saying something that might be just a little off key. And now I got to tiptoe whenever I say anything and be worried that tomorrow someone might say, oh, you know what? I didn't like what Steve said so much on modern day debates. And I'm gonna figure out who his employer is and tell him what he said. Maybe they might be successful, maybe they might not be, but again, I have to worry about that without being able to express fully what my opinions. I mean, I feel like I am expressing my opinions pretty, pretty well. I can't imagine a world where you wouldn't have it. I wanted to clarify, I'm using a little hyperbole there, so go ahead. What does that world look like where you don't have to worry about what you have to say? And I actually think I have a solution. You said the last question, which is the main thing of my PowerPoint. I think we should replace cancel culture with debate culture. I think that people, we shouldn't attack, but I think everyone's ideas are up for grab. I think you should be able to attack anyone's ideas for really anything. And I believe that we should try and foster a society in which we can really challenge those ideas instead of everyone feeling like they're personally getting challenged. And I agree that we should do those things, but I don't agree that it shouldn't also be on the table that if this guy is that messed up, you can go on Twitter and tell all your friends, hey, don't buy from these people anymore. And then they can see those tweets and maybe fire that guy. I think the answer to that was also in my intro is that sometimes the conversation doesn't always do anything. And that's why I think cancel culture really is like, the more you care about your cause, and I'm gonna carefully use the word radical here, the more likely you are to do something about a problem you see, and that's why cancel culture is not a centrist thing. It's for people who are radical enough to wanna see change in the way these things are discussed. And it's not people being attacked, it's the ideas, but we need people to spread these ideas and these people have influence and can change the way people think, then it's very much about having that discussion, but then not just letting that discussion lead to complicity. But what are those ideas? I mean, is it just inclusivity or is there something specific that, and that's where it crosses in from being just about ensuring that someone doesn't go beyond what is socially acceptable into what that narrow definition of socially acceptable is to the majority of those folks that practice cancel culture. Just so I can respond quickly. I think communities are very good at expressing as a whole where those lines are, the things that they want to be expressed about themselves and the things that they feel spread hatred and cause fear. And then like it's either often objective or at least like relatable reasons for why they don't want to be discussed that way. So I think if you listen to the communities, you can find the line while subjective is pretty understandable. Yeah, I mean, it's all subjective at the end of the day. I mean, we all subjectively here and process opinions from other people unless we're talking about physics or chemistry or something like that. But even then things can get into objectivity or subjectivity. I mean, we live in a subjective world. We all view the world through our own lens. And we have to learn how to be able to accept other people's opinions without destroying them. At least, at least in Go Headcast, I was gonna trail. No matter what, we're talking about drawing a line somewhere, right? I personally draw the line at inclusivity. I think that many of these communities that want to be exclusive, they're making a mistake in the long run. But yeah, when it comes to what is right and what is wrong, if it is inclusive, if it is trying to bring more people into your community so that you can have more options to survive with, then that is a good thing. And if it is trying to push people out of your community, if it's trying to make, if it's trying to close off avenues of progress and innovation for you, then that's a bad thing. All right, thanks everybody. Kim, why don't we just do maybe, let's just to wrap it up. Let's do 60 seconds of peace. Like, I guess your closings. You wanna start? Go ahead and take my time, Amy. I know you were rearing at the end there, so go ahead. Okay. And I had a fun debate. I actually had, I have even more questions. I feel like we can do this another time. In conclusion, what I really would like to go away from is trying to ban hammer people. In the end, I think that, in fact, one of my biggest fears is that when we cancel people, it only entrenched them in whatever view that they have. There is no more dialogue, it's about revenge and it's about punishment and a view of justice which I'm sympathetic to, but I do not think that it is the right solution. I think that it's easy for it to go in the other direction as well. And so, instead, we need to come to the table even with people we absolutely despise. That's the hard part. It's easy enough when it's people that we like, but we need to come to the table with people that we despise and not attack them but their ideas. Thank you. I just wanna say real quick, and then I tell you, you can figure this out for us, that I sympathize with your position and I don't totally disagree with you guys at all. I do think that people go too far that we need to think, be skeptical, wait for information, not jump to conclusions and take a good long look in the mirror before you say anything to anybody else. But once you've done that, if you find something that is just abhorrent, don't be afraid to say something. That's all I have to say. Yeah, and I think the biggest problem is that there's not enough attention being given to the good work that is being done and the discourse that is happening. Like it's just sheer hyperbole for me to imagine the conversation actually being shut down. And I think that what people are really concerned about is having a space where people can talk inclusively where one person isn't more easily targeted than another person for something that is out of their control. No deal. All right, thanks so much for that. We'll move into the Q&A section now. Looks like we got a, we've got a few super chats, I'm gonna push those to the top of the list. Sidra Fredesurabi, thanks so much for your $5 super chat says, converse, what, what or from does the standard come from to decide who needs to be judged for behavior? If it's consensus, can it be argued they don't know standards? Did you guys get that or should I try and reread that again? Like I said before, my standard is inclusivity. Yeah, and I think communities are really good at like giving reasonable terms for what they think is acceptable. And you know, if there's like poor execution and somebody's not following what the community wants, then they're an individual, they're an outlier. All right, thanks so much for that. Next, we have a $5 super chat from either Gabriel or Gabriel K. Thanks for your $5 super chat says, nowadays thoughts can take away your income, house, food and future. What a brave new world we live in. Thought police is a bit or well into me. It's total misrepresentation of what's going on. Nobody has been canceled for a thought. They have expressed that thought on social media or in public and then had gotten backlash for that. Yeah, and I also think it's like a child's view to think that you could live in a world where there's no responsibility for not just having the thoughts, but putting them out there and making and trying to make that opinion, for example, popular. But I don't think it's just the expression of that thought. And it's the direct targeting of individuals and that's one of the reasons why it's... How would anyone know what their thoughts are if they're hard to express? So, and again, I don't know how old you all folks are, but I grew up just prior to the internet. So I grew up with the internet as it developed and social media, I understood it from a perspective that it wasn't there when I was younger. So I was able to kind of figure out like normal social wars and things like that as the internet became a thing. So I knew what was acceptable in normal discourse. And I know a lot of the folks that are getting nailed nowadays are much older than me that are staying really dumb things. A lot of them are probably just setting their ways and don't really know how to utilize the technology and don't understand it spread. But at the same time, if you're expressing an opinion that might not be within that narrow line that is acceptable for what chance of culture means and what it specifically targets, I mean, I mean, we danced around it a little bit, but I mean, there is a very broad and narrow area that it does target. Yeah, probably ramble too much there for a question. All right, thanks. Go ahead, somebody will say something else. Oh yeah, it's just nobody, people just wanna change these people's minds in the case that they don't understand what they're doing. I actually can't imagine somebody trying to go past anything but trying to go past that if they didn't think that they could change that person's mind. All right, thanks so much for that. We had another super chat, $5 from Gabriel Kaye says, Most of America is Christian. Would Christian CC be okay? It seems democratic, right? Good thing we live in a republic with opposing mob rule. It's been okay for like the last 200 years. When did that stop? I mean, I'll agree with that as well. I mean, that chance of culture, it wasn't called that. It's more because most of the religiosity has tampered down in the States as the internet evolved and things like that. But it has been something that's there. But I don't think that the left in cancel culture is learning the lessons of the excesses of that Christian cancel culture either though. All right, thanks. Yeah, go ahead. And I just wanted to say that in some respects, I have to continue to be offensive. I still think there is a point to being offended sometimes. But can I just ask, you probably would stop if someone was able to show you that you were causing harm, right? If someone was able to, you're open to that. If someone was able to show me, yeah. So I'm open to having my mind changed about almost anything. But can you imagine if I said something stupid and then you went and you got, before we could have a conversation, before we could do anything, you went to my employer, you had a conversation with them, you talked with my, you called, you somehow doxed me and got my family's number and now you're calling my family. This is a familiar example, right? So all I'm gonna ask, all I'm gonna say though is that sounds like an outlier example. I think if somebody feels like they could change the other person's mind and that person is reasonable, they wouldn't be doing this. See, but I feel like I can change J.K. Rowling's mind and I don't wanna cancel her. Like I've read her article I went through. I hope I wouldn't change by now. Hmm, not really. You really don't think it's possible that she has no access. Nobody pulling her what would, she's very liberal and very much a feminist. She freaks the most people in her life. When I call her as turf, she freaks out. But it's kind of the same thing that Amy used to go, okay, sorry, go ahead. We're gonna get on a way big tangent there. No problem at all. All right, thanks so much for that. Looks like we have another super chat from Dan Dan who says to Amy, how would debate culture work in practice? I imagine if I could do things again, this big uproar, you have some sort of a college or some sort of theater or some sort of event where you have two or three transgender people, you have J.K. Rowling and people that agree and disagree coming together in a live setting in front of people and talking so that you get benefit for everyone involved. Everyone comes out a little bit more wise. All right, thanks so much for that. I think it would be a good idea if people started responding to cancellations directly and maybe in groups of people, getting little tribunals and little committees together and just making it popular to go through the facts slowly, deliberate about them and get a more comprehensive, more nuanced view in the public's purview so they have a better way of actually processing the information and actually getting to more justice. I also just want to point out, I think a lot of these people do have the ability to go on channels that debate and talk about their viewpoints and go up against other people, but they just don't. I think of J.K. Rowling, I just want to engage in debates and say, hey, do you have some trans people I can talk to? There wouldn't be much great man their way from doing so. I would so accept that debate. Yeah. And modern day debates is just one example of the discourse also happening at the same time. This discourse is still happening. All right, thanks so much for that. Speaking of you accepting debates, Amy, we had a questioner in the audience, Travis Lee, asked, he said to ask you if you will debate him on 21st, I believe he said. Is on a subject? Yeah, if you will ask Amy, will she debate me on the 21st on the origin of the universe? Oh, okay, the origin of the universe. Okay, so Big Bang Cosmology Tuesday, I can try. All right, just let us know and we'll hook you guys up. All right, next we have another super chat that came in from John Rapp that says, cancel, cancel culture, but be better people. Next we have a super chat from Tioga that says, make people survive. With the, I forget that symbol is Chakra, I think is what it's called, and it's all right. Next we have another two dollar super chat from John Rapp. Thanks so much for your super chat that says, Wild West was a polite society. Now, not so much. They shot each other because everybody had a gun. They shot each other all the time? Yeah, right. Yeah, I don't know if the Wild West was known for being a polite society. Let's see some statistics. I'd like to see some data on that. All right, get us your citation right over. Hey, look, we all agree on something. All right. Let's see. Stupid horror energy. Thank you so much for your $5 super chat says, what does the panel think about PewDiePie, whose antics have inspired shootings. The shooters have exclaimed to sub to him. Well, I think like, if PewDiePie seems pretty conscientious of what he's saying, he's definitely toned that down after he realized some of the stuff he was doing. And there was a discourse. He's obviously not canceled and he was able to change. So I think that stands as some evidence that there wasn't really too much to worry about in that scenario. All right, thanks so much. I'm always slightly familiar with it. I was just going to say, I'm only slightly familiar with it. And I do remember him getting knocked for, I think it was pretty much like a naughty thing or something like that that he did. I was assuming it was a joke, but I don't really know well enough. Is that gamer? No. He's a gamer. He's a gamer. Okay. Different memes. All right. Gabriel K says, I'm out of my depth. I don't know enough about it. Thanks so much for that. We have Gabriel K. Another $2 super chat. Thanks so much. He says, good job, Amy with a heart. Oh, heart back matcha. We have Jason rushing to the super chat. Thanks so much says, Kaz, how did you get so ruggedly handsome? Say, you know, I have no idea what to respond to that. I'm too caught off guard for that. Thanks so much for that. Thank you. You best. The half maybe DJ AF. Thanks for your 20 CAs says, you call Sargon an alt right and woman hater. YouTube demonized him. And he was kicked out of Patreon and Twitter. He is a liberal exclamation point. His grandpa is black. He fights against all right. There are mill examples like that. Wait, what was the beginning? They're basically trying to defend Sargon. Yeah, he just says you call Sargon an alt right and a woman hater. I don't know who he's referring to. Yeah, I'm not familiar with what he did. I've never called him anything. I'm familiar with who he is, but I don't know what happened. I didn't know he got kicked off of YouTube. Sounds like someone projecting their own self-awareness to me. Liberal is very relative, especially when you're talking about international figures. Yeah. And if his grandma was black or his grandpa, sorry, then I still didn't change what he did. So it wouldn't help or hurt anything if that was the case. All right. Thanks so much for that. Another $5 super chat from, I'm sorry. Yeah, from Gabriel K says, we are arguing about words, not action. Words protected by the First Amendment. Why are you trying to tear down democracy? Speaking of word is an action. Is it not? You have to take action. Your mouth has to make movements. You have to project, et cetera, et cetera. Like that's not a passive thing. It is an action, an assertion. You are putting ideas out into the world and actually literally changing it. Also, we've proved that words, there's a utility for canceling words. Words that we don't say in society because they cannot be said in a just way. Maybe comedy is one of those rare examples for some things, but comedy can also be insensitive. So I think we just have to be sensitive to what's being done. I was going to say my point on that. I was just going to say, yeah, sometimes I think context matters. I think intent matters because even though a lot of times comedians use bad words, if you listen to the actual joke and you break it down, normally, not always, because there's going to be asshole comedians out there. But I think a lot of times they are actually fighting on the side of the little guy, at least from my experience. Anybody who's ever heard in just... Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Oh, sorry, Steve. No, it's all right. I was just going to say, but that's the issue with cancer culture. It doesn't move... It specifically moves beyond just words. It does translate into actions that they do take against companies. Now, yes, they're utilizing words as Kaz just said, but they're taking actions directly against that person's livelihood. And that's where the difference between just being with someone and taking that action to harm them in their livelihood, even though it's not physical harm, it's still just... It's almost a ruckusity action. You've hurt me at my feelings, so I'm going to make sure that I get rid of your jab. Thanks so much for that, Steve. We have a question from... Now we're done with the super chat so far. We have a question from KiloDougie1. It says, first, for Amy, do you have a problem with workplace firing... I'm sorry, workplaces firing people for hateful racist comments in the past two years? Yeah, so now you're trying to make it really short. I honestly think that when this event happens, you need to take them into... And you need to talk with them. Do you still have these views? Are they something that has been reflected in the job? Is this person someone who's been 30 years and they have done an amazing job and they seemingly have some cognitive dissonance where they are being actually nice to dark-skinned people. But at home, they go home and they just go on Facebook and spout all this trash. Did the policy have a thing against talking on social media altogether? In that case, you're not even doing it for that. You're doing it because they had a policy in place. Really, it's all about dialogue. Are we seeking revenge? Are we seeking growth? Those are two rarer things. I just have one thing. I think a lot of the times from our outside perspective, we don't get to hear if there are other things that did happen within the workplace that could possibly correlate with this and have led to a much more decisive firing. This is why I think that if we do see a company doing something, we can't just directly equate it as a result of cancel culture. Maybe this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Thanks so much for that. We've got a lot of questions, so we'll try and answer them as briefly as possible. Practice brevity. We have another 2-Doll Super Chat from John Rapp. Thanks so much for your 2-Doll Super Chat. You just came in. Social media is like mixed mobs venting feelings. Thanks so much for that, John. Asmodeus, for your $5.00 ship chat, thanks so much, says, calling some of these instances outliers seems like deflection. Do you speak out against or condemn them? If no, then your words are hollow. Anybody? I think to the point where you can objectively say that it's unjustified, but it's just as difficult to say that something is objectively justified. So I think you're kind of creating this just like you could say the same thing for cancel culture. You're creating a standard that isn't actually there. I think that everything, like Steve said earlier, it's all subjective. There is no objective morality that has anything to say about any of these things that we're talking about. Even if you look in the Bible, you're not going to be able to find many scriptures that are going to tell you to be tolerant in these specific kind of ways, are you? I think that we are all trying to find our morality together, and this is part of that process, and this is part of the growing pains that we're going to have to go through, but the only way out of it is through it. Alright, thanks so much for that. We have another Super Chat just came in. Gabriel Kay says, comedy is to ease misery. Please don't go after comedy. I totally agree. Thanks so much for that. We'll move back into our questions that are non-Super Chat related. Question from Tuss Beatbox says, question, how do we actually stop cancel culture in a way that doesn't impose on free speech? Like real things we can do, not just pointing at certain examples. That can actually go back to that solution process, and I do think one of the main things that we should focus on is not attacking the specific individual and their livelihood, not going to their employer and saying this is what this person said. Now, if that employer for some reason finds that out on their own, that's one thing. There's no one that can stop that. I don't think that... I don't think companies should be trolling their individual social media in the first place. I think it's kind of a violation of privacy, but I will yield because it looks like there's a lot of people that want to speak. And sometimes... Oh, I just want to say that sometimes when you also cancel them, I just lost my train of thought. That's all fine. Maybe I'll pick it up when we get to the next question. Oh, the solution. Keep on going. It was about the solution. You're good. Okay. Thank you so much. Bess Daph, or DJAF, for your 20 CAs, says, it's like you don't know the YouTubers. How about Stefan Malinu? Also is called an alt-right. YouTube kicked him out, deleted all of his videos and millions of subs. Even media goes after no-name dudes for posting memes. Stefan Malinu is not a no-name. He has, like they said, millions of subs. He's got like his own little cult thing going on there. He's going to be fine. See, and his views have changed since, you know, I remember Stephen Monalox from like a 2008 time period where like his big thing was atheism. So he was on quote-unquote my side. I mean, the only thing I know of Stephen Monalox is that's not an argument. That's not an argument. That's not an argument. All right, so we've got a question from, as Modi says, if someone made hurtful statements about, statements anonymously online, do you believe the platform they made them on should dox them or be forced to via any sort of legislation? No, I think if they're saying something that denotes that they might be a threat to other people or that they might cause an act of harm in real life, then, you know, that they leave it up to law enforcement agencies and provide, I guess, supposedly should find whatever information they have. All right, thanks so much. Go ahead, David. Oh, no, you were saying something. I just remembered what my thought was before. I was just going to say, it depends on how that social media curates its content. If it's allowing people to act on open discourse and does not curtail its content, I'm using the wrong word, sorry, but if it's allowing a free platform for expression, then no. If it is curating the content, if it's specifically doing something and almost endorsing what's being put on its platform, it's no longer protected by free speech rules. So it does have to take action at that point. And I just wanted to say that I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I think that sometimes when we cancel people, I believe that sometimes makes their views look like it has more power. Sometimes when you hide people's views, like a flat earth, whether you're trying to have J.K. Rawling with her thing about transgenders, you end up making her a hero to whatever political side that that point is. Do you mind if I ask, do people pay more attention to just the ideas or just the hashtags or do they pay attention to the entire discourse? I think it's more reasonable to expect people to pay attention to the easier thing. Oh, absolutely. I mean, this part of the problem is no one wants to have complicated dialogues. There has to be conversations with people we don't like. That's what has to happen. All right, thanks so much for that. If we could try to get to the next few pretty quickly, because we do have so many that came in. We'll get to as many as possible. Some guy asked, question to Kaz and Ninetales. Would you treat a right winger differently? Aren't you then creating a hostile workplace? Do we say that we would? I don't think I would not treat anybody differently based on their views. Now, if you're going to come into the workplace I share with you and start espousing those views in a radical type of way that's going to make me uncomfortable, but I'm not going to want to work there. And if I'm the more productive employee, the boss might want you to be gone. All right, thanks so much for that. We just had a super chat come back in from Beth DeHoff. I'm calling him. Guys, I called an alt-right. I am a brown Muslim immigrant. I am just saying how it is. Honestly, we have fat studies at my uni. Explain to me why not ugly studies or short studies? I think that's a troll. Yeah, I'm not quite sure. I think I kind of understood, but I think it might have to be re-read. If he's saying that he's being called alt-right out of pocket, then that just shows... If he's saying that he's being called alt-right out of pocket, and that shows the ignorance of whoever he's talking to, hopefully that person is too ignorant to have a following to actually cancel anybody in the first place. If that's the case, I don't know. Okay, yeah, and this guy is saying that... So this is the same guy that asked the question about Stefan Malnou and Sargon of Akkad being kicked off of YouTube, and they're all their patreons and other social medias kicking them off as well for their beliefs or whatever. And now he's saying that specifically he is being called an alt-righter, and he is a brown Muslim immigrant, and he's asking that his university has fat studies, and he says, explain why... I guess he's saying like, what's next? Ugly studies or short studies? I think obesity is a common health problem, so it's something that benefits people to study. All right, thanks so much for that. We'll move on to question from Blank. Blank says, what is wrong with socially punishing certain speech and ways of living, especially given how all dominant cultures do this? It truly is inevitable. I don't think there's any way that you'll ever be able to actually get rid of the cancel culture because people are not tolerant in that kind of way. You can't have extreme tolerance. That's just letting terrible people do terrible things at its most extreme. I also feel like some of this is amplified, I'm sorry, Steve, by social media. I really think that a lot of times with social media the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease. The calm people are just not saying, and you have the millions of people who disagree, swarming. And so, yeah. I could make the same argument though for the cancel culture, Bob. Maybe they're the squeakiest wheel too. All right. Thanks so much for that. And wait, I think it goes both ways. I really do. I want to point this out. I don't think this is leftist. I really do think it's both sides. I think right now the conservatives are having a reaction to it because we're getting into the LGBTs becoming culturally accepted and stuff. I feel like as we win that cultural debate, I feel like we should try to be nice with the people that we disagree with because someone like JK Rowling agrees with 90% of what the liberals believe, but now she's made this politically correct decision for herself, and she really did make that. I read that. She felt very brave about herself. I saw that. And to be this champion of this issue, that means we need to get her out and try and change her mind or else she's going to keep on pumping those ideas out. It's clear that the cancel has not changed any of those ideas. She's just trying to put on a PR attempt. All right. Thanks so much for that. Hobo Frodo says, he has gaslighting on people needing to be conscious of what they say when that's an entirely subjective and arbitrary metric. I acknowledge that it's subjective and arbitrary. It doesn't change the fact that you need to be conscious of the fact that your words will have. You may be wrong and maybe you'll be right, but you still have to do that no matter who you are. It doesn't matter what situation you're in. You're going to have to watch your mouth. That's just being adult. All right. Thanks so much for that. Thanks. Super Chat just came in for $2. It says cancel social media so we can be people again. Thanks so much for that. We have a question from Ved Silla. Get on. Can't put that guy back in the box there. It's loose. Sorry, we can't get rid of the printing press. We're dealing with it. Thanks so much for that, Steve. We have a question from, I believe it's Ved Silla. He says, one may argue that demanding someone be fired is free speech, but tell me how getting someone fired for having the wrong opinion is not restricting to their freedom of speech. See, I think it's a really philosophical argument there and I think it would take a lot more, I don't want to say intelligent, but more learned folks to really deep dive into what really free speech means and whether free speech is universal, whether it's limited, whether we are able to utilize free speech in any form and really what the roots of the ideals of free speech are. I mean, I consider it as just the ability to say what you want, but of course we do have social restrictions on that. Common sense social restrictions, I think for the most part. I think that's a culture unfortunately that takes it a little further, but go ahead. And to me, the issue really comes down to, is it physical or is it ideas? If you're typing, I'm going to, I fucking hate my boss and I'm going to kill him. One of these days I'm going to kill him. No, usually you should. That is something that has crossed from an idea into the physical realm. You are out there just saying all atheists suck. I'm an atheist. I still want you to have your job. Can I just ask one question though? What about ideas that justify doing those harmful actions? Ideas that justify those harmful actions. Can you give an example? Dehumanizing a certain group of people which justifies causing violence against them. But that still is extremely vague. That is pretty vague. I know where you're going. Let's say we need to get rid of all black people in order to have a better society. So you're essentially referring to specifically... If they're posting that we should... I'm just referring to things that would make an action seem justified. If we're talking about an ideology that espouses genocide specifically as a goal of its ideology, then that's definitely something that advocates violence. I agree that things like the extreme neo-Nazis... neo-Nazis I guess is extreme anyways. It doesn't have to have a label in front of it. Quite natural. It's up to groups like the KKK and things like that. I would say the same thing about radical Islamists or some forms of communism. All of them have espoused specific ideas that sections of the population need to be eliminated for our worldview, our ideology to be realized. I consider them terrorist groups. I don't mind canceling the hell out of them. I just wanted to expand on that. How did you draw that line? They're just freedom fighters in their opinion. I would say the line is somewhere like an example of Lewis Farrakhan. I am not a big fan of Lewis Farrakhan. He has said really nasty stuff. But none of the things he's smart and none of the things he says is like we're going to drive white people into the sea. You can call white people savages and I'm actually okay with that. I disagree with him. But I feel that someone that I hate and despise, I feel like Lewis Farrakhan should be able to go and have a talk somewhere with other leaders even though I despise his views and I even think to a certain degree he's getting to the point of you could say he promotes violence. Malcolm X. Alright, thanks so much for that. And that actually kind of leads into what... I've seen a few different questions asking about Nick Cannon's comments where he said that white people were savages and that they were less than what he calls melanated people. And so I wondered if the... Do you guys have any response about whether... Cancel him. Cancel him. He's obviously racist. He's a popular figure and he was pretty blatant. So that's where that line kind of gets crossed. I mean it's a very vague line and unfortunately it's kind of like porn. When you see it you know it. Also the doctor he's referring to are the elders of Zion, the protocols of the elders of Zion. I think that that's actually a great example of something that's not physically harmed for physically direction how it's going to harm people. But it does slander a group of people to the point where it seems okay to do something against them. Alright, thanks so much for that. Since we have so many left let's try and do like a speed round where we just do like the briefest comment you can have and only like if maybe one person wants to answer the question that would help us get through more. So because there's so many interesting points to make on this. We just had a 20 CA come in from Bess Doff says SJW now kicking out the Jews from university. They called Jews the white men and demonstrations against Israel. The poor Jews and Christians are hiding. Harvard discriminates against Asians and I am called alt-right. Anybody want to say anything about that? The very far, far right and the very far, far left seems to have great conspiratorial views and that seems to come into the Jews for everything. Alright, thanks so much. Anybody else want to touch on that? Alright. We have a question from Tuss Beatbox says question for Amy. Even if debate culture was realistic which I doubt, don't see how you would make that happen. What would the goal be? What would any consequences of the debates be? And you see, I think modern day debates is doing that one debate at a time. I think that if you truly, some people come in with the mindset that they're trying to destroy the other people. You're not going to get to those type of debaters. But if you come in with honest interlocutors trying to have a conversation and people who are viewing come to learn something, they may open their mind. They may change their position. I mean, it's the only way that one can. Right? I mean, through dialogue and discourse. Thanks so much for that, Amy. We had a question from John Rapp says do we need to start legislating for a line between professional and private lives? If I'm a baseball player, can I sack an employee for being a cricketer? You don't need to legislate anything. People need to advocate for what they want in their contracts for their employment. And whenever other kind of deals they're making with people. All right. Thanks so much for that. As Modius says, if you wouldn't mind adding this follow-up to my previous one, if you answered yes, why allow an amenity at all? If no, then would you keep that view if it became more prevalent? Well, that was the question. I don't remember what his original question was. Yeah, I was about to see someone who's anonymous. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so my answer would be there's a utility to being able to find these people. I guess the question was kind of, this question was kind of awesome because I tried to figure out what they said. But overall, like, yeah, actually, I just realized I don't think I answered the question right. I think doxing in general is just one of the worst things that the internet's been ever developed. And that's something that definitely needs to be prosecuted at any point that it does occur. All right. Thanks so much for that. We had a question from some guy again, says, Kaz, isn't cancel culture exclusive since it literally removes people from a space? No. You're trying to say that we can't exclude individuals based on their actions. That's literally what you're trying to tell me because that means that if somebody is in your home and they decide that they want to molest your child, you can't exclude them from your home because of their actions? Can I just quickly add, this is why I said the with absolute power comes responsibility thing because if you create a space where there's no responsibility for the actions and the people who are more vulnerable to being targeted aren't going to be as included in that space by default because they're by definition not as included in that space if there's a culture of exclusion in the rhetoric there. Okay. Thanks so much for that. Comrade Pepe says isn't cancel culture the best solution to the tolerance paradox? Anybody? I do not know what the tolerance paradox is. I don't I don't really know what that is either. I think he's referring to it that you tolerate so much that you become intolerant. Well, yeah, because you would tolerate the intolerance of other people. This isn't my quote, but I'm open-minded, but not so open-minded that my brains will fall out. Nice. Alright, so Samuel Powell asks to Kaz and tales how can someone redeem themselves once they've been canceled? Check out Cult of Dusty watching videos. True. And the serfs, the serfs have been canceled actually. I moderate for the serfs and obviously I don't think they need to be canceled. I think just you know, you can you can just say sorry, but you can also if you're a creator, if you're a content creator or you're an influencer, you can use that to dispel the notions that you maybe once thought were true or whatever. If you're being canceled, you probably have the means to redeem it. Yeah, you can go and advocate for the rights of the people that you've harmed. You can make a positive change in the world. Thanks so much for that. We got a Patreon question from Spark344 says, is it a good idea to drive racist underground by canceling them to where we can't see or monitor them? Yes, if we want a world that's technically free of racism but still doesn't persecute people for having ideas. And see, I think we should have the racist debate me and everyone else here. We can also do that. Thanks so much for that. We have a $2 Super Chat from Gabriel Kay. It's Gabriel Kay, I'm not sure which, sorry. $2 says, why do only totalitarian censor free speech? Because then you can't speak out against them? Because you can't try to cancel the totalitarian? Yeah, I mean, it's a standard policy of an authoritarian government to ensure that speech is not something that is utilized against them. I mean, it's just part of this whole to get to there. Well, technically, this was how it's hearing would want ultimate free speech for themselves. So that's something worth noting. All right, thanks so much. That was our last question. So thanks for everybody for being here. I want to thank all of the debaters for coming and contending and if we could is anybody want to say anything else before we take off? It was fun to be talking about it. Like this video, like our channels, share, subscribe to all of us, especially modern day debates. Thank you. Thanks. As Jay says, if you hear if you've heard something where you're like, man, I really want to hear some more from this person. The link should be in the description. If they're not by now, they will be bought before tomorrow. And so go ahead and check them out. And again, I just want to thank everybody that came out that was in the live chat. There's a lot of different conversations going on there. We won't make sure everybody feels welcome here because this is a non or I should say, yeah, non partisan channel. So with that, thanks so much and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. For sure. Bye.